Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

STATE OF U.P. THRU' EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND ANOTHER versus PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


State Of U.P. Thru' Executive Engineer And Another v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court And Others - WRIT - C No. - 49413 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 16461 (8 October 2007)

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 AT ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel.

By this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated24.2.2004 passed by the Payment of Wages Authority directing the payment of wages to the respondents No. 4 to 48. An application was filed by the respondents before the Payment of Wages Authority in which after condoning the delay notices were issued to the petitioner. Petitioners appeared before the Payment of Wages Authority. After hearing both the parties an order was passed directing for payment of wages. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner after three years 127 days of passing the order. It is not the case of the petitioners that they were not aware of the order or the order was ex parte. The order was passed after hearing the parties. From the letter Annexure-12 to the writ petition, it appears that the petitioners were well aware of the statutory remedy of appeal as provided under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and he requested the Government that the entire amount is to be deposited for filing the appeal. In fact the letter also requested the Government to make available the amount to deposit before the appellate court. No appeal has been filed by the petitioners under the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The writ petition at the instance of the petitioners against the impugned order cannot be entertained at this late stage. There is no satisfactory explanation given in the writ petition for entertaining the writ petition after more than three years. There being statutory remedy of appeal under Sections 17 of the Payment of Wages Act. In the facts of the present case, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is dismissed with the above observation.

D/-8.10.2007

SCS/49413


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.