The High Court disposed of this writ petition as infructuous because the underlying dispute was already decided against the employee in 1998, and his revision petition had been dismissed in 2005.
Rule discharged; writ petition disposed of as infructuous.
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
213.wp.3489.97
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3489 OF 1997
Gram Panchayat Mahora, Taluka Jafrabad, District Jalna. Through it's Sarpanch.
...PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
...RESPONDENTS
None for Petitioner.
AGP for Respondent 1 : Shri S.N.Kendre. Advocate for Respondent 2 : Shri A.S.Shelke.
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE :- 22nd December, 2016
Oral Judgment :
by the Labour Court granting temporary reinstatement during the
pendency of the ULP complaint. The Petitioner is also aggrieved by the
judgment dated 24.04.1997 delivered by the Industrial Court, Jalna by
2 213.wp.3489.97
which the order of temporary reinstatement was modified to the payment of subsistence allowance till the ULP complaint is decided.
2 This Court, by it's order dated 04.09.1997, admitted the petition and stayed the impugned orders.
3 Shri Shelke, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2/ Employee, submits that the complaint pending before the Labour Court has already been decided against the Respondent/ Employee on 10.11.1998. His revision petition is also dismissed by the Industrial Court on 20.09.2005. He is presently before this Court in Writ Petition No.969/2006 which is awaiting final hearing.
4 In the light of the above, this Writ Petition is rendered
infructuous and is, therefore, disposed of. Rule is discharged.
kps
Gram Panchayat Mahora
The State of Maharashtra
Shankar s/o Ganeshrao Lahane
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
