O. O. C. J v. Virmala Ramesh Patel & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
The Petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Judgment
... Mr. V.M. Parkar for the Petitioner. Mr. P.M. Patel for the Respondents. .... ..Petitioner. ..Respondents. CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 6th November, 2006. P.C. : The order of the Industrial Court dismissing the appeal against the order of the Labour Court was passed on 11th March,
Operative part
2004. This Petition was instituted on 7th October, 2006 nearly two years and seven months after the order of the Industrial Court. There is not even an attempt to explain the delay nor is any averment contained in the Petition to that effect. At the hearing, it has been urged that the proceedings under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 were not maintainable. But again, it is fairly 2 admitted that no such point was taken either before the Labour Court or in appeal before the Industrial Court. The issue cannot be allowed to be agitated for the first time in writ proceedings. The Petitioner did not lead any evidence at all to rebut the evidence that was adduced on behalf of the workman. No case for interference under Article 226 is warranted. The Petition is dismissed.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The Petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946.
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.