Dmt v. Scotts Garments Ltd
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 14 Aug 2012
- Bench
- A A SAYED
Outcome
Dismissed
Hence, the Petition is dismissed on the ground of
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. I am, therefore, not inclined to entertain the Petition. Hence, the Petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. ( A.A. SAYED, J.)
Judgment
Mr. N.M. Ganguli for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent. CORAM : A.A. SAYED, J. DATE : 14 AUGUST 2012. P.C. The order impugned in this Petition is an order dated 8 March 2007 passed by the Labour Court. By the impugned order the Petitioner's prayer for reinstatement was refused. The Petitioner was however granted 75% Dmt 2 wp1573-12 back-wages with continuity of service.
The present Petition has been filed on 20 June 2012, after more than 5 years of the passing of the impugned order. It is noticed that the Petitioner has throughout participated in the proceedings i.e. Writ Petition No. 1755 of 2007 which had been filed by the Respondent Company challenging the very order dated 8 March 2007.
In the said Writ Petition filed by the Respondent Company, by an order dated 1 October 2007, this Court had directed the Company to deposit 75% of the back-wages. The Petitioner was granted liberty to apply for withdrawal of the amount.
Thereafter, by an order dated 24 February 2009 in Notice of Motion No. 550 of 2008 that was taken out by the Petitioner (Respondent therein), the Petitioner was permitted to withdraw the amount subject to furnishing security. In the said order it is recorded that the Petitioner Dmt 3 wp1573-12 shall not press his claim under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
It appears that the Petitioner has not been able to withdraw the amount, which withdrawal was made conditional upon furnishing of security and the Petitioner has now belatedly challenged the impugned order by way of the present Writ Petition after a period of more than half a decade. There is no explanation much less satisfactory explanation for condoning the delay in filing the Petition.
Operative part
I am, therefore, not inclined to entertain the Petition. Hence, the Petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
( A.A. SAYED, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, the Petition is dismissed on the ground of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 14 Aug 2012. The bench was A A SAYED.
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.