Appellant filed a Letters Patent appeal against a writ petition dismissed by the Single Judge, who found the appellant had no right to the post as tenure was less than 90 days. The High Court held no violation of rights and dismissed the appeal.
Appeal 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.
LPA No. 923 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision: August 5, 2010
Harbans Lal
…Appellant
Versus
The Labour Court, Jalandhar and others
…Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
Present: Mr. Ram Kumar Chauhan, Advocate, for the appellant.
M.M. KUMAR, J.
The appellant is in appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 7.8.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 1829 of 2000, dismissing the writ petition. It has been categorically found that the appellant did not have any right to the post as he had worked only for less than 90 days. Learned Single Judge has rightly opined that no right of the appellant could be considered to have been violated by the respondents. No interference in the letters patent appeal would be warranted. Dismissed.
(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE
2
August 5, 2010
(A.N. JINDAL) JUDGE
Pkapoor
2 issues framed by the court
Whether interference is warranted in the letters patent appeal against the order dismissing the writ petition regarding the appellant's lack of right to the post due to short tenure.
Whether the appellant had any right to the post having worked for less than 90 days.
Harbans Lal
The Labour Court, Jalandhar
M.M. KUMAR
A.N. JINDAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
