Excellent note letter: this High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Labour Court award for non-prosecution as counsel for the petitioners was not available to appear.
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.
C.W.P. No. 16211 of 1992 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 16211 of 1992 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.8.2012
Punjab Agriculture University and another
..Petitioners
v.
Presiding Officer and another
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: None for the petitioners. None for the respondents.
Rajesh Bindal J.
Challenge in the present petition is to the award dated 5.8.1992, passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda (for short, 'the Labour Court').
A perusal of the impugned award shows that a bunch of 13 references were decided together. The same award was subject-matter of challenge in a bunch of writ petitions, which were dismissed by this court vide order dated 26.5.2011 by common judgment in C.W.P. No. 16210 of 1992 – Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana and another v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda and another.
Even at the time of issuance of notice of motion on 10.12.1992, the present petition was directed to be heard along with C.W.P. No. 15434 of 1992. In the aforesaid petition also, the award passed in the case of one of the workmen, which was decided vide common order by the Labour Court, was under challenge. The aforesaid writ petition has also been dismissed vide order dated 26.5.2011.
Considering the aforesaid facts, prima facie , there is no merit in the present petition, as the same also deserves to be dealt with in the same
C.W.P. No. 16211 of 1992 [2]
manner in which the impugned award, whereby 13 references were decided by the Labour Court, was upheld.
However, as counsel for the petitioners is not available, the present petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge
16.8.2012 mk
Punjab Agriculture University
Presiding Officer
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
