This appeal against a Single Judge order dismissing a writ petition was dismissed. The High Court affirmed that execution of the Industrial Tribunal award lies under the Industrial Dispute Act, not through the High Court.
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.
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 368 of 2016
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondents
For Appellant : None appears
For Respondents
: None appears
Hon'ble Shri Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Judgment on Board
Per Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice 06.10.2018
wa 368 of 2016
2
or court for implementation or execution of the award of the Industrial Court specially when enough provisions are available within the framework of the statute in this regard.
Sd/- Sd/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi) (Parth Prateem Sahu) Chief Justice Judge
padma
2 issues framed by the court
Whether it was erroneous for the Single Judge to hold that the Industrial Tribunal award required execution under the Industrial Dispute Act.
Whether the High Court could be considered the executing agency for the Industrial Court award.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ravi Kumar Fekar
The Assistant General Manager, State Bank Of India, Region 1
State Bank Of India
The Branch Manager, State Bank Of India Branch Baloda Bazar
State Of Chhattisgarh
Ajay Kumar Tripathi
Parth Prateem Sahu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
