Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HARYANA ROADWAYS WORKERS UNION versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Haryana Roadways Workers Union v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-11658-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 4951 (28 July 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP NO.11658 of 2006

DATE OF DECISION:July 31, 2006

Haryana Roadways Workers Union

....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana and others

.....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.BHALLA

PRESENT: Shri Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Shri Suman Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Viney Mittal,J.(Oral).

Notice of motion to the respondents No.1 and 2 only.

On the asking of Court, Shri Ashok Jindal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the said respondents.

Copies of the writ petition have been supplied to the learned counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner Union has approached this Court challenging the order dated July 11,2006 (Annexure P.14) whereby it has been communicated that recognition granted to the petitioner was being withdrawn and that the Haryana Roadways Workers Union headed by Dharamvir Singh (respondent No.3) was the recognised Union.

A specific grievance has been made in the present petition is that the aforesaid order (Annexure P.14) passed by the Transport Commissioner, Haryana is without ever affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner Union and without ever serving show cause notice upon it.

Prima facie from the perusal of the order (Annexure P.14), we find that the aforesaid grievance made by the petitioner appears to be justified.

However, without commenting any further on the various pleas raised by the petitioner, we dispose of the present petition with a direction to the Transport Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh, respondent No.2 to decide the controversy raised by the petitioner afresh. For this purpose, the petitioner Union shall be required to file a detailed and comprehensive representation with respondent No.2 within a period of three weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is received. All the relevant documents shall be appended alongwith the said representation. On receipt of the aforesaid representation, respondent No.2, Transport Commissioner shall, after affording an opportunity to the representative of the petitioner Union and the representative of the respondent No.3 Union, decide the controversy by passing a fresh detailed and speaking order and without being influenced by the earlier communication/order (Annexure P.14) within a period of three months from the date of filing of the said representation.

A copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges.

(Viney Mittal)

Judge

July 31, 2006 (H.S. Bhalla)

KD 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.