Madan Lal v. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed as
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek reference under Section 10 of the 1947 Act. If the workman applies for reference, the appropriate authority will expedite its disposal. If the matter is referred to the…
Judgment
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal. Present: Mr. Sandeep Panwar, Advocate for the appellant(s). Mr. Amarjit Singh Virk, Advocate for respondent No.1 and 2. Anil Kshetarpal, J.
The appellant’s counsel, at the outset, prays for permission to withdraw the appeal in order to avail remedy under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1947 Act”) which is not opposed by the learned counsel representing the respondents.
Operative part
In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek reference under Section 10 of the 1947 Act. If the workman applies for reference, the appropriate authority will expedite its disposal. If the matter is referred to the Court, then efforts should be made to expedite its disposal. (Anil Kshetarpal) Judge September 16, 2024 “DK” Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No (Sheel Nagu) Chief Justice DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2024.09.20 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed as
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — s. 10.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 16 Sep 2024. The bench was ANIL KSHETARPAL.
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.