Writ Petition No. 2474 OF1998 · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
The petition is dismissed and the petitioner is further directed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto cost. Sd/- SatishK. Agnihotri Judge
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^ WRIT PETITION No. 2474 OF1998 PETITIONER Stee] Authority of India Limited. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Judge, Labour Court & Another Writ Petition underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aanihotri. J. Present: Shri Gautam Bhaduri, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri H.B.Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Meera Jaiswal, Advocate for the respondent No.2. O RD E R fOPEN COURT1 (Passed on 01st March, 2013) Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
#1. The instant petition arises from the order dated 15.01.1998 (Annexure P/1), passed by the Labour Court under the provisions of Industrial DisputesAct, 1947. -
#2. The Labour Judge, after having examined all the documents and evidences adduced before him, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had failed to establish that second respondent was found medically unfit in the examination conducted by the Medical Board. The Labour Court has recorded that the petitioner had not even produced a certificate whereunder the petitioner makes a claims that second respondent was medically unfit. After holding that the second respondent was not medically unfit directed reinstatement w.e.f. 24.11.1984 on the post of Senior Truck Driver and also to pay the difference of wages.
#3. Itisfound in the order sheet dated 09.11.1998thatthe second respondent had already superannuated from service and the amount towards difference of wages was directed to be deposited in fixed deposit in a nationalised Bank. "vf- a@3^ • ^-^ i.& a^t;
#4. Having regard to the facts, as aforestated, there is no merit in this case. The petition is dismissed and the petitioner is further directed.to make the • '} payment with interest, which has accrued in the nationalised Bank pursuant to the order dated 09.11.1998tothe8econd respondent, asearly as possible, preferably within a period of one month.
#5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto cost. Sd/- SatishK. Agnihotri Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition is dismissed and the petitioner is further directed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.