Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DEVENDRA RAM versus CHAIRMAN, NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD, MAU AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Devendra Ram v. Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, Mau And Another - WRIT - A No. 59899 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 2523 (8 September 2005)

 

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

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Amrendra Nath Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, and have perused the record.

The petitioner claims that he had worked with the respondent-Nagar Palika Parishad, Mau from 6.11.1987 to 31.3.1991 regarding which he has filed an experience certificate as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. On the petitioner not having been paid his wages from December, 1989 to November, 1991 the petitioner had filed a claim petition before the Labour Court which was allowed on 29.11.1995. However, it has been stated that the amount as awarded by the Labour Court has not been paid to the petitioner. The petitioner has thus filed this writ petition with a prayer for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in service and to pay the salary of the petitioner from December, 1989 to November,1991.

The petitioner has nowhere in the writ petition averred that he has worked with the respondent-Nagar Palika Parishad, Mau after March, 1991. The certificate of experience is only for the period upto 31.3.1991. As such the prayer of the petitioner for his regularization in service cannot be granted.

As regards the payment of his wages for the period December, 1989 to November,1991 which, according to the petitioner, has already been allowed by the Labour Court, it is for the petitioner to approach the concerned authority under the Industrial Disputes Act for having the award executed. The writ jurisdiction cannot be converted into executing court for execution of the award of the Labour Court. As such the second prayer also does not deserve to be granted.

Accordingly this writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. No order as to cost. However, this order shall not debar the petitioner from approaching the competent authority or labour court for the redressal of his grievance for regularization in service in case if the petitioner is continuing to work on daily wage basis.

Dt/-8.9.2005

dps

w.p.59899.05


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.