High Court refused interference in a writ petition challenging a labor tribunal order permitting another union to represent a workman and a government reference regarding termination/regularization of casual workers.
The writ petition was dismissed; no ground found to interfere with the tribunal order or the reference made.
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 ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.1929 of 2010
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
…. Petitioner Mr. J. Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
Union of India and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate for Intervenor
CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
23.09.2021
Order No.
Page 1 of 3
said order.
Page 2 of 3
8. The writ petition is dismissed.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice
B.K. Barik
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
Page 3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the interlocutory order permitting a different trade union to represent a workman warrants judicial interference.
Whether the writ petitioner can challenge the reference to an industrial tribunal when the petitioner did not challenge the order of the High Court that preceded it.
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Union of India
B. P. Routray
B.K. Barik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
