Petitioners challenged their grievance before the High Court claiming Labour Court had jurisdiction. The court dismissed the petition on the ground that it was not maintainable as the petitioners had already approached the Labour Court for relief.
Writ petition dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWP(T) No. 8158 of 2008. Decided on 7th December, 2010.
Prithvi Singh and Others.
…Petitioners.
-Versus-
State of Himachal Pradesh and Others.
…Respondents.
Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1
____________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : None. For the respondents. : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral) :
It has come in the reply that the petitioners have already approached the learned Labour Court for the redressal of their grievance. Consequently, this petition is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
[
(Rajiv Sharma) Judge December 07, 2010. (bhupender)
1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the petitioners have already approached the Labour Court for redressal.
Prithvi Singh and Others
State of Himachal Pradesh and Others
Rajiv Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
