Petitioners appeared for directions following a prior interim order but the court held no further order was required, pending the outcome of an existing interim order regarding canteen workers.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2013 OF 2004
Central Bank Employees Union Vs. Union of India & Ors.
..Petitioner.
..Respondents.
Mr. Bhavesh Parmar for the Petitioner.
Mr. J.P. Cama with Ms. S.V. Kher i/b RMG Law Associates for Respondent No.3.
Ms. Meena H. Doshi for Respondent No.4.
CORAM : DALVEER BHANDARI, C.J.& DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J,
17th August, 2004.
P.C. :
The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 has
drawn our attention to the order which has been passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.984 of 1996. In that case, this Court passed the interim order not to discontinue the canteen workers. In our opinion, this order protects the interest of the petitioners also and at this stage no further order is required. In case, the interim order passed by this Court is vacated or varied, then the petitioners would be at liberty to approach this Court. We direct
that from the date of vacating or varying the order for a period of
four weeks, neither the facility of the canteen would be withdrawn, nor the petitioners be discontinued. No further directions are necessary in this petition. The writ petition is accordingly disposed
of.
CHIEF JUSTICE
DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.
Central Bank Employees Union
Union of India
Dalveer Bhandari
D.Y. Chandrachud
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
