M/s. Pioneer Alloy Castings Limited, Registered Office at 22 & 23, Industrial v. MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Between: M/s. Pioneer Alloy Castings Limited, Registered Office at 22 & 23, Industrial Area, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta, Chittoor district rep., by its Managing Director Sri K. Subbaiah, S/o.K.Venkaiah, R/o. Chennai, Tamilnadu. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Kurnool Zone, Kurnool. 2 The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Renigunta, Chittoor District. 4 The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 5 Pioneer Alloy Castings Workers Union, rep., by its General Secretary, Sri D.Maheshwar Reddy, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR WRIT PETITION NO : 24340 of 2003 Between: M/s.Pioneer Alloy Castings Limited, Registered Office at 22 & 23, Industrial Area, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta, Chittoor District rep., by its Managing Director, Sri K.subbaiah, s/o K.Venkaiah, r/o Chennai, TN ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Kurnool Zone, Kurnool. 2 The District Collector, Chittoor District, Chittoor 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Renigunta, Chittoor District. 4 The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 5 Pioneer Alloy Castings Workers Union, rep., by its Sri D.Maheshwar Reddy, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to call for the records from the 1st respondent and issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the action of 1st respondent in proceedings the amount of No.B1/392/2003, dated 15-7-2003, Rs.60,16,016.76 ps., under Section 33-C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as illegal, unjust, contrary to law and without jurisdiction; and consequential proceedings of the respondents No.2 to 4 for recovery of the amount are also illegal and invalid, and grant all consequential benefits in determining Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Learned Advocate Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao seeks permission to withdraw the writ appeal as well as the writ petition. Permission granted. The appeal as well as the writ petition stands disposed of as withdrawn with no order as to costs. _____________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 30th December, 2008. GRR
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.