Disposed

Neeraj Kumar v. Bhupinder Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Jan 2012COCP/1596/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Posh Critical case: The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed for non-compliance of a previous order directing payment of arrears of wages. The respondent affirmed payment was made, leading to the rule's discharge with liberty to represent for any outstanding dues.

What did the court decide?

Rule discharged; petition disposed of with liberty to represent regarding any outstanding dues.

Neeraj Kumar Vs Bhupinder Singh — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶2

COCP No.1596 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: January 27, 2012

Neeraj Kumar

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

Bhupinder Singh

.....RESPONDENT(S)

. . .

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶10

****

¶11

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

¶12

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

¶15

PRESENT: - Mr. Jaideep Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Aman Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant-respondent.

¶16

Surya Kant, J (Oral)

¶17

C.M. Nos.2335-CII & 2336-CII of 2012

¶18

Applications are allowed.

¶19

Affidavit of respondent alongwith Annexure A-1

¶20

is taken on record.

¶21

COCP No.1596 of 2011

¶22

COCP No.1596 of 2011 [2]

¶23

The petitioner preferred Civil Writ Petition

¶24

No.7646 of 2009 titled ‘Neeraj Kumar vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & another’ which was allowed in part on 8.12.2010 with the following direction(s):-

¶25

“Accordingly, the award passed by the Labour Court would need to be modified. The petitioners are held entitled to claim monetary benefits three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition, as has been done in the case of some identical placed persons. Any amount now becoming due, be disbursed to the petitioners within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶26

The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.”

¶27

Alleging non-compliance of the afore-stated

¶28

order, this petition has been filed.

¶29

The respondent has filed the reply/affidavit. As per the averments made therein alongwith order appended thereto, the due amount of arrears of wages was paid to the petitioner, leaving no cause to continue with these proceedings.

¶30

This petition is accordingly disposed of, however, with liberty to the petitioner that in case there is anything still due, he may represent and the competent authority shall consider and dispose of the representation in accordance with law.

¶31

Rule discharged.

¶32

(SURYA KANT)

¶33

January 27, 2012 JUDGE avin

Neeraj Kumar v. Bhupinder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj Kumar v. Bhupinder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gobind Motors Vs Harjeet Singh

Angrej Singh Vs Sanjeev Garg

Mewa Singh Vs G.V. Vajralingam & Ors.

Ram Kumar Vs Bhupinder Singh

Surindra Wati Vs Bhupinder Singh

Surinder Singh Vs Bhupinder Singh