This single-judge judgment dismissed the writ petition. The court declined to interfere with the Labour Court's finding that an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, regarding retirement benefits was not maintainable as there was no termination.
The writ petition was 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 PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 16120 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 17, 2010
Rajinder Singh
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
Presiding Officer, Faridabad and another
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH.
PRESENT: Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Mohak Bhadana, Advocate, for Mr. R.N. Singal, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
RANJIT SINGH, J.
Labour Court has found that there was no
termination and application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, thus, is not maintainable. There is no reason made out for interference in the view taken by the Labour Court.
Dismissed.
September 17, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika I JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ court can interfere with the Labour Court's finding that an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is not maintainable due to no termination.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajinder Singh
Presiding Officer, Faridabad
Ranjit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
