The High Court of Bombay at Bombay dismissed Writ Petition No.2895 of 2002 as infructuous based on a statement by the petitioners that the impugned award had become infructuous, noting that the jurisdiction ceased after passing the final order when withdrawal of the statement was sought.
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.2895 OF 2002
Rashtriya Kamgar Sanghatana and Anr...Petitioners
Vs.
G.K.W.Ltd. Sankey Electrical
Stamping Divn.Mumbai ..Respondents
Mr.R.D.Bhat for the petitioners
Mr.C.U.Singh a/w Ms.Geetanjali Prabhu and Ms.Najma
Shaikh i/b Vigil Juris for the respondent nos.1 to
3
CORAM : S.U.KAMDAR, J
DATED : 13TH APRIL, 2006
P.C.:
1. The learned counsel for the petitioners has
tendered a statement duly signed by the union as
well as the advocate in which it has been stated
that the impugned award has become infructuous and
accordingly, the petition be disposed of. The
learned counsel for the respondents does not accept
that the said award has been infructuous. In my
opinion, in view of the statement by the
petitioners themselves that the impugned award is
infructuous the question of going into the validity
or otherwise of the said award does not arise.
Petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous.
2. After the order is passed in the morning
session, Mr.Bhat mentions the matter at 3 p.m. and
submits that he may be permitted to withdraw his
statement which he has given in writing in the
morning because he did not understand the
implication thereof. In my opinion, once I have
already passed a final order in the writ petition,
my jurisdiction has ceased and I cannot pass any
order in the said writ petition. However, I sought
from Mr.Singh whether his client is giving the
consent to withdraw the statement and he states
that his instructions are not to give any such
consent. In that view of the matter, no further
orders are possible on the oral application made by
Mr.Bhat. Application is rejected.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition requires adjudication when the petitioners have submitted that the impugned award has become infructuous.
Rashtriya Kamgar Sanghatana and Anr
G.K.W.Ltd.
S.U.KAMDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court