The court dismissed the writ petition for want of prosecution as the petitioner had no instructions and parties appeared uninterested in prosecuting the matter.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.6674 OF 2004
Shri Ramrao Tukaram Patil .. Petitioner
Vs.
The Asst.Commissioner of Labour
& Anr. .. Respondents
Mr.A.A.Garge for the petitioner
Mr.Bhavesh Parmar for respondent nos.1
Mr.S.R.Nargolkar, A.G.P. for respondent nos.2
CORAM : J.N.PATEL &
S.J.KATHAWALA, JJ.
DATED : 6TH OCTOBER, 2008
P.C.:
. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that he has no instructions in the matter.
Therefore, he may be granted time to seek
instructions. On 18.8.04, when this petition came
up before the court, the petitioner was permitted
to amend and it was specifically mentioned that the
matter be taken up for admission after the
2
Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nashik decides
the dispute as per the order of the court on
08.06.2004 in Writ Petition No.3998 of 2004 and the
petitioner came to be adjourned sine-die.
Thereafter, it appeared that the parties are not
interested in prosecuting the matter. May be, that
the matter stands resolved. Therefore, we dismiss
the petition for want of prosecution. We make it
clear that dismissal of the petition does not in
any manner prevent the petitioners from seeking
alternate remedy available to them under the law.
( J.N. PATEL, J )
( S.J. KATHAWALA, J )
Shri Ramrao Tukaram Patil
The Asst.Commissioner of Labour
Anr.
J.N. PATEL
S.J. KATHAWALA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court