Disposed

M/S Lt Foods Limited v. State of Punjab etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Mar 2014CWP/12159/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition seeking direction to deploy security and quashing of an agreement granting monopolistic labor rights was disposed of without adjudication. The court directed the petitioner to pursue grievance remedies regarding PUNGRAIN through legal channels.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; petitioner directed to seek remedy against PUNGRAIN in accordance with law.

M/S Lt Foods Limited Vs State of Punjab etc. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

C.W.P. No. 12159 of 2013 [ 1 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶3

C.W.P. No. 12159 of 2013 Date of Decision:March 19, 2014

¶4

M/s LT Foods Limited........................... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab and others .................. Respondents

¶7

Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri

¶8

1.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶9

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶10

Present: Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner/s.

¶11

Mr. Rupam Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab.

¶12

Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.8.

¶13

Mr. S.S.Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.9.

¶14

Mr. A.S.Virk, Advocate for Mr. P.S.Thiara, Advocate for respondent No.14.

¶15

RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral)

¶16

The instant petition filed under Articles 226/227 of

¶17

the Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing respondent Nos. 2 to 6 to

¶18

Kaur Rupinder 2014.03.27 13:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

C.W.P. No. 12159 of 2013 [ 2 ]

¶20

deploy adequate security/police personnel at the godown/premises of the petitioner, for safeguarding the life, liberty and property of the petitioner from the unlawful activities of respondent No. 9 and further prayer has been made for declaring the agreement dated 06.04.2004 purportedly executed between respondent No.9 and respondent No. 8 and 13 to 15 giving the former monopolistic and exclusive right to perform the work of porters/labourers in the premises/godowns run and operated by the contractors of respondent No. 8 and 13 to 15.

¶21

Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the Concession Agreement dated 4.8.2011 (Annexure P1) whereby as per Clause-B the parties have decided as under:“The Authority has decided to implement the Project by engaging the Concessionaire for designing, constructing, financing, owning, operating and maintaining the Facilities on a BOO basis in accordance with the Technical Requirements, the Performance Standards and Good Industry Practice, such that the Facilities are fully equipped with appropriate weighing and testing facilities, automatic quality control devices, mechanised conveyor systems and arrangements for unloading/loading of wheat grain, for the scientific management and handling

¶22

Kaur Rupinder 2014.03.27 13:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶23

C.W.P. No. 12159 of 2013

¶24

[ 3 ]

¶25

of wheat grain.”

¶26

Pursuant to the above said condition the petitioner has entered into a contract with the private labour on 10.8.2011 (Annexure P2). This contract was for a period of one year and was in terms with the Agreement dated 4.8.2011 (Annexure P1).

¶27

The petitioner has challenged the Agreement dated 6.4.2004 (Annexure P5) which is entered between the rival trade unions to avoid law and order situation.

¶28

Counsel for respondent No.8 has reiterated that this Agreement dated 6.4.2004 (Annexure P5) was merely a compromise between the rival groups of trade unions and this compromise will not effect the terms of contract (Annexure P1) which they have entered with the petitioner and pursuant to this Agreement (Annexure P1) the petitioner has engaged contract labour vide Annexure P2.

¶29

Counsel for respondent No.9 states that to this Agreement (Annexure P5) the petitioner was not a party and therefore he cannot challenge it.

¶30

The writ petition is disposed of. However, if the petitioner has any grievance against PUNGRAIN he can take his remedy in accordance with law.

¶31

( RITU BAHRI ) JUDGE

¶32

19.3.2014 rupi

¶33

Kaur Rupinder 2014.03.27 13:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

M/S Lt Foods Limited v. State of Punjab etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Lt Foods Limited v. State of Punjab etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

(O&M)Prem Nath etc. Vs G.K. Nagpal etc.

(O&M) Ram Sarup Vs Bhagat Ram

Balbir Singh etc. Vs Shinder Kaur etc.

(O&M) Ran Singh Vs Chander Singh etc.

Punjab Pradesh Galla Mazdoor Union Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gora Lal Jain Vs State of Punjab and Ors.