The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a writ petition seeking resolution of disputes related to back-log salary and quarter possession. The court relied on previous decisions and directed the inclusion of the earlier order by operation of law.
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
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Petition No.4641 of 2005
2
Addresses: All through Quarter No.10-D/Street-28.Sector-8, P.O.Bhilai, District-Durg, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioners
Versus
---Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Uttam Pandey, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order on Board
04/09/2015
1. Learned counsel appearing for the parties jointly submit that the dispute involved in the instant writ petition is finally covered by the decision rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No.02/2001 affirmed in Writ Appeal Nos.574 & 575 of 2013 and also by W.P.(S) No.3499/2006, therefore, the present writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid decisions of
3
this Court.
2 . This Court in case of Rudal Yadav Vs. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. and others 1 states as under:-
“4. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, the present writ petitions disposed of directing the petitioner to file a detailed representation before respondent No. 1 & 3 within one month form today along with a copy of this order and that of the orders passed in Writ petition No. 02 /2001 and Writ Appeal No. 64 of 2014. In the eventuality of filing any such representation by the petitioner, respondents No. 1 to 3 are directed to decide the same expeditiously, preferable within a period of six months form the date of receipt of the representation, in accordance with law considering all aspects of the case including the eligibility of the petitioner as observed by this Court in Writ petition No. 02/2001. The respondents are further directed to release the back–log salary of the petitioner as mentioned in Annexure R/2 after adjusting all dues relating to quarter of the company. The petitioner is also directed to vacate the quarter within two months form the date of receipt of the back-log salary as mentioned in Annexure R/2 after adjusting all dues relating to quarter. In case, the petitioner does not vacate the quarter even after receipt of the back-log salary, the respondents would be at liberty to take recourse to the proceedings available under the law.”
3 . Accepting the submissions made by the parties, in terms of the above orders and also in terms of the order dated 11.2.2015 passed in W.P. (S) No.3499/2006 (Rudal Yadav Vs. Hundustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. and others), this writ petition stands disposed of. Order passed in Rudal Yadav (surpa) be made part of this order. No order as to cost(s).
4 . Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/(Sanjay K. Agrawal) JUDGE
B/-
1 W.P. (S) No.3499/2006 decided on 1.2.2015
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the instant writ petition should be disposed of in terms of previous decisions of this Court relating to similar disputes.
What is the procedure for adjudicating back-log salary claims of employees in the respondent company?
Are the relists barred by the previous orders in Writ Petition No.02/2001 and Writ Appeal Nos.574 & 575 of 2013?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rudal Yadav Vs. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. and othersAffirmed¶44
Rudal Yadav Vs. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. and others
1 provisions across 1 enactments
A.K.Bhattacharjee
Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd.
Sanjay K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
