Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


The Kisan Sahakari Chini Mills Ltd. v. Deputy Labour Commissioner, Azamgarh And Others - WRIT - C No. 39420 of 2000 [2003] RD-AH 451 (17 November 2003)


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).


Court No. 19

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39420 of 2000

The Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd.


Deputy Labour Commissioner, Azamgarh & others

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,  J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This writ petition is directed against the impugned order/letter dated 17.8.2000 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) by which respondent no. 3 has sought recovery of Rs. 2,43,743.00 from the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned award dated 23.10.1997 passed by the Labour Court in Adjudication Case No.354 of 1988. The petitioner had challenged the award in Writ Petition No.43572 of 1998, in which no interim order was granted by this Court. It appears from the record that there being no stay order in favour of the petitioner, recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,94,948.55p, out of which about Rs. 56,532.00 had only been realized. The petitioner challenged the said recovery proceedings before this Court by Writ Petition No. 26537 of 2000 which was dismissed by this Court on 1.6.2000 as not maintainable as there was no error if the authority decided to execute the award and second writ petition challenging the recovery proceedings was not maintainable and the award cannot be challenged on merits. It was also observed by this Court in the order dated 1.6.2000 that appropriate remedy for the petitioner was to make an application in the pending writ petition in which the award had been challenged. This writ petition is similar to that writ petition in which the petitioner has challenged subsequent recovery proceedings in pursuance of the same award and therefore this writ petition is also not maintainable being a third writ petition. It is submitted by the petitioner that he has also filed an application in the earlier writ petition no. 43572 of 1998 for stay of the recovery proceedings. Hence this writ petition is not maintainable.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The interim order is vacated. No order as to costs.

Dated: 17.11.2003



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


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 |

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