Dismissed

Ashok Kumar Garg v. M/S Hindustan Zinc Limited, and Anr.

Rajasthan HC21 Sept 2022CW/3065/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dividing Bench of High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur rejected the writ petition filed by a workman against Hindustan Zinc Limited. The court held the petition non-maintainable, citing a prior decision. Time spent in court is excluded for limitation purposes.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of as not maintainable against the respondent company.

Ashok Kumar Garg Vs M/S Hindustan Zinc Limited… — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3065/2005

¶3

Ashok Kumar Garg S/o Sh. Mukit Lal, By caste Aggarwal, aged about 36 years, R/o House No. 504-A/3 Prem Nagar Delhi Road, Opp.- Raj Cinema Theatre, Gurgaon

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

M/s Hindustan Zinc Limited, Yashad Bhawan, Udaipur, (Raj.) 2. General Manager (Dy.) Hindustan Zinc Limited, Zone Sinelter P.O., Visakhapatnam.

¶7

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Nes Gupta for Mr. GJ Gupta	----Respondents
For Respondent(s)	: Ms. Kamini Joshi

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶9

Order

¶10

21/09/2022

¶11

The present writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:-

¶12

“(i) The respondent company may be directed to pay to the petitioner interest @ 18% per annum on the amount of 10,38,357/- from 15.02.2003 to 31.12.2003 i.e. sum of Rs. 1,63,541/-.

¶13

(ii) The respondent be directed to pay train fair sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner.

¶14

(iii) The respondent be directed to pay by way of compensation for delay in making payment so as to cover losses on account of delay in payment as referred to here in above.”

¶15

The Division Bench of this Court in a batch of writ petitions

¶16

led by D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 236/1984 (P. Paliwal vs. Hindustan Zinc Limited & Ors.) held that the writ petitions filed

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

[CW-3065/2005]

¶19

by the workmen are not maintainable against Hindustan Zinc Limited.

¶20

The petitioner-workman however, is at liberty to avail remedy as per law. The time spent in this court by the petitionerworkman till the date of this decision is excluded for purposes of limitation, while computing limitation.

¶21

The writ petition is disposed of as per above observations.

¶22

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 88-KashishS/-

Ashok Kumar Garg v. M/S Hindustan Zinc Limited, and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Garg v. M/S Hindustan Zinc Limited, and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khushboo Aasopa Vs Paschimi Raj. Dugdh U. S.Sangh Ltd.Andors

Dr. Harshvardhan Sarswat Vs State and Anr.

Smt. Prem Lata Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

Hemlata Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan

Dipti Sharma Vs State and Ors.

Satya Naryan Sharma and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.