This brief order clarifies that the Single Judge's refusal to grant liberty to claim other benefits does not debar the appellant from filing a separate petition for such benefits before the High Court. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Clarification that the appellant is not debarred from claiming other benefits via a separate petition.
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.
LPA No. 756 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 19, 2010
Madan Lal Sethi
…Appellant
Versus
Labour Commissioner and others
…Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
Present: Mr. Ashok Sharma Nabhewale, Advocate,
for the appellant.
M.M. KUMAR, J.
The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 5.2.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 1657 of 2009. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the learned Single Judge has not granted liberty to the appellant to claim other benefits by filing a separate petition. Accordingly, we clarify that the decision by the learned Single Judge will not debar the petitioner-appellant to claim other benefits, which may be due to him.
The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.
(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE
(A.N. JINDAL) JUDGE
July 19, 2010
2
Pkapoor
1 issue framed by the court
Whether granting liberty to claim other benefits in a separate petition is necessary.
Madan Lal Sethi
Labour Commissioner
M.M. Kumar
A.N. Jindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
