This single-paragraph order dismisses a writ petition filed with a one-and-a-half-year delay challenging a Section 10 reference by the Deputy Labour Commissioner regarding an employment dispute, stating no prima facie case exists.
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
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.373 OF 2009
Saurashtra Cement Ltd. ....Petitioner
V/s.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents
Mr.R.M. Naik i/b Mr.S.P. Salkar for the Petitioner.
Mr.G.K. Mourya for Respondent No.4.
CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.
DATED : 16TH MARCH, 2009.
P.C. :
1. The Petitioner challenges the order of
reference made under Section 10 by Respondent No.2 -
Deputy Labour Commissioner in respect of the dispute
between the Petitioner and Respondent No.4.
Respondent No.4 claims to have been employed by the
Petitioner as a Driver. According to the Petitioner,
Respondent No.4 was employed by Respondent No.5 - a
Director of the Petitioner.
2. Firstly, the Writ Petition is filed after a
delay of one and half years. Secondly, it is not
possible to state that there is not even a prima-facie
case in the present case. For instance, in the
affidavit in reply, some documents have been relied
upon by Respondent No.4 in respect of this contention.
: 2 :
At this stage, I do not say anything further in
respect of the merits qua these documents. This is a
matter which will be considered in the reference.
3. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is
dismissed.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the reference order under Section 10 should be dismissed on grounds of delay and lack of prima facie case.
Saurashtra Cement Ltd.
State of Maharashtra
S.J. VAZIFDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court