Disposed

Court on its own Motion v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC18 Sept 2017CWPIL/95/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a suo moto petition regarding non-payment of wages and labour law violations. Directions were issued to expedite pending proceedings before the Labour Court and Deputy Commissioner within six months and six weeks respectively.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to expeditiously decide pending Labour Court proceedings within six months and Deputy Commissioner proceedings within six weeks.

Court on its own Motion Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶2

CWPIL No.95 of 2017 Date of Decision: 18.09.2017 ____ Court on its own motion …..Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents. Coram:

¶3

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge .

¶4

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶5

For the Petitioner: Ms. Shalini Thakur, Advocate as Amicus Curiae.

¶6

For the Respondents: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General, with Mr. Anup Rattan & Mr. Romesh Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, and Mr. J.K.Verma, Deputy Advocate General.

¶7

Sanjay Karol, ACJ. (oral)

¶8

This Court, taking suo moto cognizance on a letter petition addressed to the Chief Justice of this Court, making out grievances of non-payment of wages and raising other issues with regard to implementation of the Labour Laws, issued notice to the State.

¶9

Also, learned Amicus Curiae, under directions, interacted with the complainant for ascertaining the factual position. 3. From the response-affidavit filed by the Labour Commissioner-cum-Director of employment, Himachal Pradesh, grievances vented out by the complainant appear to be true.

¶10

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶11

…2…

¶12

In fact, pursuant to notice issued by this Court, proceedings under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as well as Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 stand initiated. Now, the matter is pending adjudication with the appropriate authority i.e. Labour Court -cum -Industrial Tribunal, Shimla ( hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) and the Deputy Commissioner.

¶13

As such, we dispose of the present petition with the

¶14

following directions:-

¶15

a) The proceedings pending before the Labour CourtCum-Industrial Tribunal, Shimla are expedited and endeavour shall be made to decide the same within a period of six months.

¶16

b) The proceedings pending before the Deputy Commissioner, Solan under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 are also expedited and shall positively be decided within a period of six weeks.

¶17

c) Learned Amicus Curiae undertakes to inform the complainant about the passing of this order.

¶18

d) Registry is directed to forthwith communicate the order to the Tribunal and the Deputy Commissioner. Also a copy of complete paper book be sent to these authorities.

¶19

…3…

¶20

Under these circumstances, we close the present proceedings. Valuable assistance rendered by Ms. Shalini Thakur, learned Amicus Curiae, in assisting the Court is highly appreciable.

¶21

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of

¶22

accordingly.

¶23

( Sanjay Karol), Acting Chief Justice

¶24

18^th September, 2017 ( Sandeep Sharma ), ( shankar) Judge.

Court on its own Motion v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Court on its own Motion v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Hp Vs Dass Ram Alias Shankar Singh

State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Kashmir Singh So Sh. Chet Ram

Satpal Malhotra Vs State of Hp

Gurdev Singh Vs State of Hp

Manjeet Singh Chhatwal Vs State of Hp

Babu Ram Vs Divisional Manager