Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ONIDA MONIKA KARMACHARI SANGATHAN versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' CHIEF LABOUR SECY. & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Onida Monika Karmachari Sangathan v. State Of U.P. Thru' Chief Labour Secy. & Ors. - WRIT - C No. 56400 of 2003 [2007] RD-AH 3415 (28 February 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 23

        Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 56400 of 2003

   Onida Monika Karmachari Sangathan  

....   Petitioner

Vs.

    State of U.P. And others        

......Respondents.

Hon. S.P. Mehrotra, J.

Pursuant to the order dated 26.2.2007, the case has been put-up as an unlisted case today.

Sri K.C.Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 states that he gave written intimation to the learned counsel for the petitioner , as per the directions given in the said order dated 26.2.2007.

Miss Bushra Maryam, learned counsel for the petitioner is present.

I have heard Miss Bushra Maryam, learned counsel for the petitioner and  Sri K.C.Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.  Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents nos. 1,2 and 3, has  also been heard.

It appears that the petitioner moved applications before the  respondents Nos. 1,2 and 3, interalia, praying for referring the matter  to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication as to whether the closure declared by the respondent no.4 was legal or illegal.

As no action was taken by the respondents nos. 1,2 and 3 on the said applications of the petitioner , the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was filed by the petitioner , interalia, making the following prayers :-

"(i)    to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to refer the case of illegal closure of the industrial establishment of respondent no. 4 to the competent Court.

(ii)    to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to summon the records of the illegal closure of the industrial establishment of the respondent no. 4 from the respondent no.3 and pass the order of referring the case to the competent Court.

(iii)    to issue any other writ direction or order or grant such other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and ;

(iv)     to award cost of the petition".

A Counter Affidavit in reply to the Writ Petition was filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4 on 19.5.2004.

Thereafter, Supplementary Affidavit, sworn on 5.9.2006, has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4.

It is, interalia, stated in paragraph no. 5 of the aforesaid Supplementary Affidavit that the State Government has referred the dispute between the parties under Section 4 -K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Industrial Tribunal , Meerut along with  List of Labours.

Copy of the order of reference dated 31.1.2004 along with  List of Labours has been filed as Annexure  S.A. 1 to the aforesaid  Supplementary Affidavit.

Copy of the aforesaid Supplementary Affidavit was served on  Miss. Bushra Maryam, learned counsel for the petitioner  on 5.9.2006.

It is submitted by Sri K.C. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 that in view of the reference having been made by the State Government under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the said order dated 31.1.2004, reliefs sought by the petitioner in the  Writ Petition stand granted , and therefore, the Writ Petition has become infructuous.

Miss. Bushra Maryam, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly not disputed that in view of the reference order made by the State Government referring the dispute between the parties to the Industrial Tribunal , Meerut, under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the present Writ Petition filed by the petitioner has become infructuous .

In view of the above, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed as having become infructuous .

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.

However, on the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

dt. 28.2.2007/aks.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.