Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

STATE OF U.P. THROUGH EXEC. ENGG.,GANGA CANAL DIV. versus THE LABOUR COURT, U.P. GHAZIABAD & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


State Of U.P. Through Exec. Engg.,Ganga Canal Div. v. The Labour Court, U.P. Ghaziabad & Another - WRIT - C No. 20974 of 1997 [2005] RD-AH 7550 (14 December 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. 31

Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 20974 of 1997

State of U.P. vs. Labour Court

..

Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.

Heard learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri R.N. Rai appearing on behalf of respondent workman.

I have gone through the record of the case as well as the impugned order dated 28.1.1997 passed by the respondent no. 1.

Learned standing counsel has argued that the matter was heard ex parte and decided against the State and without any notice whatsoever. However it cannot be said that the State did not have notice because the State filed writ petition no. 487 of 1996 before this Court and obtained an order on 8.1.1996.

Even if the limitation is counted from 8.1.1996 as the learned standing counsel has argued that it was under the orders of the Court in writ petition no. 487 of 1996, that they were given opportunity to file an application for restoration under Rule 16 (2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules but the State filed application for recall/restoration under Rule 16 (2) on 16.8.1996. A period of eight months had expired after the passing of the order by the Hon'ble court. The application filed on 16.8.1998 clearly shows that it was beyond ten days as contemplated under Rule 16 (2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules. The impugned order dated 28.1.1997 passed by the Labour Court is correct and is hereby upheld.

The writ petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any, shall stand discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.

Dated  14.12.2005

Rk.20974.97


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.