Dismissed

Kartik Ram v. Manager, Jute Rice Mill and Anr.

Chhattisgarh HC9 Jan 2017WPL/6818/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an industrial dispute order previously challenged in a dismissed writ petition. Court held the present petition not maintainable as a subsequent petition for the same cause of action and dismissed it allowing challenge to prior dismissals.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed for not being maintainable as a subsequent petition for the same cause of action.

Kartik Ram Vs Manager, Jute Rice Mill and Anr. — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶2

ORDER SHEET

¶3

Writ Petition (L) No. 6818 of 2011

¶4

Kartik Ram S/o Vishwanath Acharya, aged 49 years, R/o Panjari Plot, Chakradhar Nagar, Tahsil & Distt.- Raigarh (CG).

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Manager, Jute Rice Mill, Raigarh, Tahsil & Distt. Raigarh (CG).

¶8

Industrial Court (Bench), Krishna Sadan, 16, HIG Shankar Nagar, Raipur (CG).

¶9

---- Respondents

¶10

09/01/2017 Shri MK Sinha, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Amrito Das, Advocate for the respondent No.1.
The present petition, in principal, is being filed challenging the order dated 13.02.2002 passed by the Industrial Court, Bench at Raipur, in Appeal No.02/MPIR Act/99. The said order was already subjected to challenge in Writ Petition No. 1676 of 2002 which got dismissed for want of prosecution on 21.03.2006. Against the said dismissal of petition for want of prosecution, MCC No. 306 of 2011 was filed which too got dismissed on merit on 13.06.2011. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the same order which was under challenge in Writ Petition No.1676 of 2002 which has already been dismissed. Accordingly, the present petition is not maintainable as subsequent petition for the same cause of action is not sustainable. The petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the order passed in Writ Petition No. 1676 of 2002 and MCC No.306 of 2011 in accordance with law, if any. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) JUDGE

09/01/2017
Shri MK Sinha, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Amrito Das, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

The present petition, in principal, is being filed
challenging the order dated 13.02.2002 passed by the Industrial
Court, Bench at Raipur, in Appeal No.02/MPIR Act/99.
The said order was already subjected to challenge in
Writ Petition No. 1676 of 2002 which got dismissed for want of
prosecution on 21.03.2006. Against the said dismissal of
petition for want of prosecution, MCC No. 306 of 2011 was filed
which too got dismissed on merit on 13.06.2011.
By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has
challenged the same order which was under challenge in Writ
Petition No.1676 of 2002 which has already been dismissed.
Accordingly, the present petition is not maintainable as
subsequent petition for the same cause of action is not
sustainable.
The petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the order
passed in Writ Petition No. 1676 of 2002 and MCC No.306 of
2011 in accordance with law, if any.
With the aforesaid liberty, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)

JUDGE

¶11

Inder

Kartik Ram v. Manager, Jute Rice Mill and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kartik Ram v. Manager, Jute Rice Mill and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Siya Ram Yadav Vs State of C.G.

Central Bank Of India Vs Sarabjeet Singh

Tinku Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Vinod Kumar Prajapati

Smt. Heera Bai Kanwar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

J.p.mishra Vs State Of Chhattisgarh