Mahajana Hamili Karmika Sangam_ v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Labour, Mahaboobnagar Diskict
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Trade Union Act
- Constitution of India arts. 21, 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Judgment
Cause title
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue order or orders direction or directions, writ or writs more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the in action of the '1st respondent in settling the dispute and in not referring the matter to the competent Labour Court as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 21 of the constitution of lnida, consequently direct the 1st respondent to refer the matter to a competent Labour Court having jurisdiction under Section 1O of the lD act 1947 or alternatively to allow the petitioners union to redefine their areas of operation in just and equitable manner so as to allow both the unions to enjoy their rights to life under Artiale 21 of the Constitution of lndia. l.A. NO: 'l OF 2005 (WPMP. NO: 24307 OF 2005) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 1st respondent to allow the petitioner union to redefine the areas of operation under their by laws pending disposal of the main V1/.P.No. of 2005. l.A. NO: 2OF 2005(WPMP. NO: 25090 OF 2005) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to amend the main prayer in WP No. 1909412005 as to issue order or orders, drrection or directions, Writ or Writs more particularly one in [he nature of "WRIT OF MANDAIIUS" declaring the inaction of the 1st respondent in not referring the matter to the Government of AP., Labour Department, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of lndia, consequently direct the 1st respondent to refer the matter to a competent labour Coul having Jurisdiction under Section 10 of the LD. Act, 1947 ot alternatively to allow the Peti9tioners union to redefine their areas of operation in just and equitable manner so as to allow both the unions to enjoy their right to life under Article :21 of the Constitution of lndia". Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI A.RAGHU KUMAR Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 : GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI V.MALLIK The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA WRIT PETITION No.19O94 OF 2OOs
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for not referring the matter to the competent labour Court under Section 1O of the I.D.Act, 1947 or any alternative to allow the petitioner's union to redefine their areas of operation.
The writ petitioner did not turn up.
Perusal of the record shows that order, dated 29.O3.2OO4 passed in W.P.No.5688 of 2OO4, the General Secretary, Loading & Unloading Hamali Union was directed to entertain conciliation proceedings with the Mahajana Hamali Karmika Sangham, Registered Trade Union.
As there is no representation by both the parties and the writ petition is pending from the year 2005, this Court finds that there is no reason to continue the same as the parties are not interested to pursue the litigation.
Accordingly, this writ petition is closed. No costs' ...,1
Miscellaneous applications, pending if ar:y, shall stand closed To, 1 2 a 4 //TRUE COPY// ,l SD/- V. KAVITHA REGISTRAR REPUTY i\- '.,J secnou oFFrcER One CC to SRI A.RAGHU KUMAR, Advocate. [OP d, Two CCs to GP FOR LABOUR, High Court for the Stater of Telangana. [OUT] One CC to SRI V.MALLIK, Advocate. [OPUC] Two CD Copies. BSK p1.,rC,. JS HIGH COURT DATED:281021202s ORDER WP.No.19094 of 2005 .a k- 'r(. i.- i-)il ) ,.) 19JUl'l m ( z 'N f:1:r,.ra, Jg-O CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS P^tq 21\g\,,
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.