Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SAKATTAR SINGH & ORS versus PRESIDING OFFICER,CENTRAL LABOUR COURT A

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sakattar Singh & Ors v. Presiding Officer,Central Labour Court a - CR-2276-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 2947 (5 May 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

C.R.No.2276 of 2006 (O&M)

Date of Decision: May 09,2006.

Sakattar Singh and others ... petitioners vs.

Presiding Officer,Central Labour Court and ors.

..... respondents.

Coram: Hon'ble.Mr.Justice Pritam Pal

Present: Mr.J.C.Verma,Sr.Advocate, with

Ms.Meenakshi Verma,Advocate,for the petitioners.

PRITAM PAL,( Oral)

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that an application for summoning the documents through the employees of the management (F.C.I,Tarn Taran), was moved by the work-men in the year 1993, which remained pending on one pretext or the other till 2003 The said application was allowed by the Presiding Officer of the Central Labour Court and accordingly, the witnesses and the records/documents mentioned therein were summoned. The witnesses alongwith the records of the management (F.C.I,Tarn Taran), could not be summoned earlier as the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, was not working regularly, as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner. Thus, another application for summoning the same witnesses as filed earlier in the year 1993, was moved in the year 2003, which has been rejected simply on the ground that the same was vague. Ultimately, another application giving all the details and specific dates of the records to be summoned in this case was moved,but the same was rejected.

In the given facts and circumstances of the case, and even without serving any notice upon the respondents, this Civil Revision is disposed of with the direction that the learned Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, shall now summon the records/documents, which were mentioned in the earlier application moved in the year 1993,but subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs payable by the petitioners to the respondents-management.

May 09,2006 (Pritam Pal)

RR Judge


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.