Smt. Shanti & Ors. v. State) Date of order & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed on
Provisions considered
Judgment
O R D E R S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4416/2006 (Smt. Shanti & Ors. Vs. State & Ors.) Date of order : 22.5.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. Kuldeep Mathur, for the petitioners. Mr. R.K. Mehta, for the respondent No.2. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the orders by which they have been retrenched from services, which is alleged to be in violation of the provisions of Section 25F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act,
Operative part
1947. Since, the petitioners have alternative remedy which is of efficacious nature provided by the statute under the ID Act before the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, without availing of the alternative remedy available under the Statute, petitioners have straight away filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which cannot be entertained on the ground of alternative remedy available to them. 2 Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. However, the petitioners may approach the appropriate Government for making a reference within one month and if deemed proper, the appropriate Government may refer the industrial dispute to the concerned Labour Court for adjudication. It is expected that the appropriate Government shall refer the matter to the concerned Labour Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order along with application filed by the petitioners. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed on
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Rajasthan High Court, on 22 May 2008. The bench was GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS.
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.