(Court’s order whether the case is or not approved for reporting) v. Assistant Labour commissioner, Devpura Haridwar
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 20 Oct 2003
- Bench
- RAJESH TANDON
Outcome
Disposed of
With the above observations the writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL. Writ Petition No. 1255 of 2003 (SS) Vinod Kumar son of Sri Ram Chandra R/o 853/Type II, Sector 1, BHEL, Ranipur Haridwar ………… Petitioner Versus Assistant Labour commissioner, Devpura Haridwar. Sri Lokpal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Standing Counsel for the respondent. ……… Respondent Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Dated: October 20, 2003 This writ petition has been filed for issue of a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to initiate the prosecution against the officers of the B.H.E.L. Ranipur, Haridwar in pursuance of Section 14A of U.P. Industrial Dispute Act 1947, on the basis of application dated 5.9.2003. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner and other employees are working in the B.H.E.L., Ranipur, Haridwar. They have raised labour dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner which was referred to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun being Industrial Case Nos. 31 of 1990 to 44 of 1990. The labour court has passed an award on
Operative part
5.7.1996 in favour of the employees against the employer M/S B.H.E.L. and was notified on 19.12.1996. The employer filed a writ Petition No. 41787 of 1998, Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd; Ranipur vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner and others before the Allahabad High Court which was dismissed by the Court vide order dated 17.2.1999. The observations of Allahabad High Court in the said order are quoted below:
In the result, both the writ petition nos. 2109 of 1997 an 4187 of 1998 are found without any merit and substance and are accordingly dismissed. In case the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.2,17,000/- (Rs. Two lacs and seventeen thousand) with the Dy. Labour Commissioner, Meerut Region Meerut within a period of one month from the date of this order (i.e. today) no further action for initiating criminal proceedings in view of the provisions of Section 14- A of the Act shall be taken against it. If the amount, aforesaid is deposited, it shall be disbursed to the respondent workmen in terms of the award dated 5.7.1996. In the event of the failure of the petitioner to deposit the amount, aforesaid, within the stipulated time, this order would not be an impediment in launching criminal proceedings against the petitioner under sec. 14-A of the Act. IN the light of the observations made above, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1654 of 1999 shall stand disposed of. The parties shall bear their own costs.
The petitioner has stated that his application-dated 5.9.2003 is still pending. Copy of which is annexed as annexure -4 and the same has not been disposed of. Without entering into the merits of the controversy, the respondent is directed to dispose of the application of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of four weeks after receiving certified copy of this order. The observations made above, shall not come in the way of the Labour Commissioner to dispose the application of the petitioner on merits. With the above observations the writ petition is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
20.10.2003 *Dhyani (Rajesh Tandon, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the above observations the writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Uttarakhand High Court, on 20 Oct 2003. The bench was RAJESH TANDON.
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.