Writ Petition No. 211 of 2011 · Bombay High Court
Case at a glance
- Order date
- 24 Jan 2011
- Bench
- D D SINHA
Outcome
Dismissed
Subject to the above observations, the petition is dismissed as
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
- Minimum Wages Act, 1948 s. 20
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Subject to the above observations, the petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE RR.
Judgment
Mr. G.M. Shitut, Advocate for Petitioner. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C. J. AND D.D.SINHA, J. DATED : JANUARY 24, 2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
What is challenged in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are communications dated 20-23rd November, 2009 and 26th February, 2010 requiring the petitioner to appear before the concerned respondent authorities. Since no final order was passed, when the petition was filed, the petition challenging the above communications was not maintainable.
The learned counsel for the petitioner states that now the authorities have passed orders under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
In view of above, the cause for filing this petition has become infructuous. Without going into the merits of the contentions raised, we leave it open to the petitioner to file substantive petition against the order passed by the respondent authorities, if it so desires.
Operative part
Subject to the above observations, the petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE RR.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Subject to the above observations, the petition is dismissed as
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Minimum Wages Act, 1948 — s. 20.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 24 Jan 2011. The bench was D D SINHA.
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.