Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RADHA MUNI versus HINDALCO INDUSTRY LIMITED THRU' G.M. & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Radha Muni v. Hindalco Industry Limited Thru' G.M. & Another - WRIT - C No. 56337 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 3450 (23 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

                                                                                     Court No.38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 56337 of 2005

Radha Muni Vs. Hindalco Industry Limited

Renukoot, district Sonbhadra

and another  

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

Heard Sri Ashwani Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri V.K.Upadhyaya, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the award dated 26.2.1998 passed by Labour Court, Varanasi.

This writ petition has been filed in August 2005. The only explanation for filing this petition after delay of more than seven years is given by the petitioner in paragraph 3 of the writ petition, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner had earlier challenged the subsequent award dated 21.4.1998 by means of writ petition no. 16450 of 2002 but without challenging the earlier award dated 26.2.1998 by which the departmental enquiry conducted in the case of the petitioner was held to be just and proper. In the judgment of the earlier writ petition which was passed on 4.8.2004, it has categorically been mentioned that in the award dated 21.4.1998, in the very beginning, mention of the earlier award  dated 26.2.1998 had been made and thus it could not be  said that the petitioner was unaware of the award dated 26.2.1998. Further, even if the explanation given in paragraph 3 of the writ petition is accepted, then also this writ petition has been filed after more than a year of dismissal of the earlier writ petition no. 16450 of 2002 which was on 4.8.2004. The certified copy of the award dated 26.2.1998 had been applied on 1.11.2004 which was also got ready and received by the petitioner on the same day i.e. 1.11.2004.  No explanation for not filing the writ petition for the next ten months has been given anywhere in the writ petition. The office has reported that there is laches of more than seven years in filing this writ petition as the award, which is under challenge, is of the year 1998.

In view of the fact that the petitioner has not explained as to why he is approaching this court after so much delay, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches.

This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.  

Dt/-23.9.2005

Ru


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.