This Court dismissed the writ petition filed by a complainant challenging the appointment of a respondent, holding that a complainant lacks locus standi in employer-employee disputes and such matters cannot be raised via PIL.
Writ petition dismissed; appointment of respondent not quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25659 of 2018
Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Indra Pal Singh Rajpoot Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Kumar Tyagi
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for respondent no. 5.
Petitioner before this Court claims to be a mere complainant and he has questioned the very appointment of the 6th respondent on the basis of allegations that he has made to the authorities competent enough to examine the same.
In the opinion of the Court, the complainant does not have any right to get a writ issued as a third party in a mater where the issue is between the employer and employee. Even by way of Public Interest Litigation, in the considered opinion of the Court such issue cannot be raised.
Writ petition is highly misconceived and is dismissed .
Order Date :- 5.12.2018 IrfanUddin
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a complainant in an employer-employee dispute has the locus standi to file a writ petition.
Whether such a grievance can be entertained under Public Interest Litigation.
Ramesh Chandra Verma
State Of U.P.
Ajit Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
