Dismissed

Rama Shankar Yadav v. the Presiding Officer and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Nov 2012CWP/22368/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a challenge to an Industrial Tribunal's award which held the petitioner's application under the Industrial Disputes Act not maintainable due to lapse of time. The petitioner, who ceased working in 1992, attempted to file a fresh case in 2012; the Court found no illegality in the Tribunal's refusal to entertain the belated claim.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the Tribunal's award dated 12.10.1998 was dismissed.

Rama Shankar Yadav Vs the Presiding… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

C.W.P. No. 22368 of 2012 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

C.W.P. No. 22368 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.11.2012

¶4

Shri Rama Shanker Yadav

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

¶7

The Presiding Officer and others

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

¶10

Present: Mr. H. K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Rajesh Bindal J.

¶12

Challenge in the present petition is to the award dated 9.5.2012, passed by Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Jalandhar (for short, 'the Tribunal'), whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 2-A(2) and 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') was held to be not maintainable.

¶13

It is a case in which the petitioner claimed that he worked with the respondent-management as Chowkidar from 26.4.1988 to 15.5.1992. His services having been terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, he raised an industrial dispute. The matter was referred to the Tribunal, where the question referred was answered against the petitioner vide award dated 12.10.1998. The same was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No. 12612 of 2001 in this court, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 15.5.2007 with liberty to file fresh one on the same cause of action after giving better particulars. It is also relevant to mention here that the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed in default in January, 2004 and thereafter even an application filed for restoration was also dismissed in default. The applications for condonation of delay and restoration of the application were allowed on 15.5.2007 when the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh one. After

¶14

C.W.P. No. 22368 of 2012 [2]

¶15

keeping quiet for four years, the petitioner thought of filing the application in question before the Tribunal impugning his termination, whereas admittedly the petitioner had worked with the management last in the year 1992, though this fact was disputed by the management.

¶16

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in my opinion, no illegality has been committed by the Tribunal in declining relief to the petitioner.

¶17

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶18

(Rajesh Bindal) Judge

¶19

9.11.2012 mk

Rama Shankar Yadav v. the Presiding Officer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rama Shankar Yadav v. the Presiding Officer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Girish Anand & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Roop Lal and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Mandeep Singh Vs State of Punjab etc.

Parkash Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Nakul Kundra Vs Guru Nanak Dev University and Ors.

Jyoti Paul and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.