Dismissed

Municipal Council Ropar Thrg Executive Officer v. Presiding Officer Patiala and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Apr 2014CWP/12864/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a Writ Petition filed by the Municipal Council, Ropar. Bench reviewed a Labour Court order and held that it was passed in accordance with a prior remand order by this Court. The Court found no jurisdictional error, patent illegality, or prejudice caused to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Municipal Council Ropar Thrg Executive… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

CWP No.12864 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.12864 of 2013 Date of decision:09.04.2014

¶5

Municipal Council, Ropar

¶6

....Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patiala & another

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA

¶11

Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?

¶12

To be referred to reporters or not?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

Present:- Mr. K.V.Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶15

G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J (ORAL)

¶16

Counsel for the petitioner has fairly pointed out that the challenge is to the order dated 29.5.2013 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Labour Court, Patiala, whereby the workman has been held entitled for the amount due for working on Saturdays. It is submitted that in CWP No.26212 of 2013 titled as Municipal Council, Ropar versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patiala and another, this Court had dismissed the writ petitions filed by the Municipal Council, Ropar, by holding as under:-

¶17

“ A combined reading of the above said remand order passed by this Court and the impugned order

¶18

Kadian Savita 2014.04.11 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶19

CWP No.12864 of 2013

¶20

¶21

passed by the learned Labour Court would show that the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order strictly in accordance with the directions issued by this Court and after granting due opportunities to both the parties to lead their respective evidence. The rate of interest has also been awarded as per directions issued by this Court. In this view of the matter, it is unhesitatingly held that the learned Labour Court committed no error of law, while passing the impugned order and the same deserves to be upheld for this reason also.

¶22

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any jurisdictional error or patent illegality apparent on the record of the case, which might have been committed by the learned Labour Court, while passing the impugned order. Further, no prejudice has been shown to have been caused to the petitioner by passing of the impugned order. Thus, the impugned order deserves to be upheld for this reason, as well. No other argument was raised.

¶23

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view

¶24

Kadian Savita 2014.04.11 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶25

CWP No.12864 of 2013

¶26

¶27

that all these writ petitions are misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance. Thus, these must fail. No case for interference has been made out.

¶28

Resultantly, all these writ petitions stand dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.

¶29

Accordingly, keeping in view the fact that the similar order

¶30

has been upheld. The present writ petition is also dismissed.

¶31

April 09, 2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) savita JUDGE

¶32

Kadian Savita 2014.04.11 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Municipal Council Ropar Thrg Executive Officer v. Presiding Officer Patiala and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Municipal Council Ropar Thrg Executive Officer v. Presiding Officer Patiala and Anr.

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

Bhudutt Vs P.O., Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court-Ii, Faridabad

Managing Director & Anr. Vs Presiding Officer Ind Tribunal & Anr.

District Red Cross Society Ambala City Vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Anr.

Karamjeet Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Jyoti Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Rajyashree Bhartia Vs Presiding Officer and Ors.