FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 802/2009 Ashu Ram Kumhar & Ors. v. Managing Director & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 09 Feb 2009
- Bench
- H R PANWAR
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 s. 33(c)(2)
Judgment
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. D.K.Parihar, for the petitioners. BY THE COURT By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek partial modification of the order Annex.1 dated 27.7.2007 and a direction to the respondents to pay the wages of one month notice pay. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Carefully gone through the order Annex.1 dated 27.07.2007 passed by respondent Industrial Disputes Tribunal and Labour Court, Udaipur (for short 'the Labour Court' hereinafter) in case No.33/99 filed by Ashuram and 112 other petitioners therein under Section 33 (c) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the ID Act' hereinafter). The very order dated 27.07.2007 Annex.1 came to 2 be challenged by the respondent employer M.D. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. by way of writ petition being S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2288/2008 which came to be dismissed by order dated
21.11.2008 wherein this Court observed that it is not in dispute that under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, an obligation was there upon the employer to make payment of one month advance notice pay to the workman concern and that was lacking by 17 days for every workman who is part of present dispute. The employer in its reply and even during the course of arguments, admitted that the notice pay was lacking by 17 days. The labour court has awarded the workman nothing beyond the wages for a term of 17 days, for which they were entitled under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme itself. On these premises, Coordinate Bench of this Court held that the labour court determined the amount only to the extent of settled entitlement, as such, there is no error in the order impugned dated
27.7.2007. Since the issue has already been decided by this Court finding no error in the order impugned passed by respondent Labour Court Annex.1 dated 27.7.2007, the writ petition lacks merit and it is therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. (H.R.PANWAR), J.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — s. 33(c)(2).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Rajasthan High Court, on 09 Feb 2009. The bench was H R PANWAR.
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.