Dismissed

Hari Ram v. Po, Industrial Tribunal Kota

Rajasthan HC2 Aug 2023CW/2000/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Jaipur disposed of a writ petition filed for directions to proceed with a labour dispute. The Court allowed the interim application to dismiss the petition as infructuous, holding that the dispute had already been decided by the Industrial Tribunal vide an award dated 21.11.2012.

What did the court decide?

Interim application allowing dismissal of the writ petition as infructuous was allowed. The pending writ petition was dismissed.

Hari Ram Vs Po, Industrial Tribunal Kota — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2000/2001

¶3

Hari Ram son of Shri Surajmal Yadav, r/o village Tehla Post Suwana, Teh. Diood, District Kota (Rajasthan).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Kota.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : None. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Jain

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶10

Order

¶11

02/08/2023

¶12

Matter comes up on interim application No.01/2023 for dismissing the writ petition as it has become infructuous.

¶13

Application stands allowed for the reasons stated

¶14

therein.

¶15

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

¶16

following prayer:

¶17

“It is, therefore, prayed that your Lordships be pleased to call for the record, and examine the same and:-

¶18

(A) By an appropriate writ order or direction the respondents may be directed to proceed with the matter and adjudicate the dispute as per Law and the rules made thereunder.

¶19

(B) Any other order or direction which the Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper be also passed in favour of the petitioner with costs.”

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a

¶21

limited prayer was made by the petitioner seeking directions to

¶22

[CW-2000/2001]

¶23

the respondents to proceed with the matter and adjudicate the dispute as per law and the rules made thereunder. Counsel submits that during pendency of this petition the dispute raised by the petitioner before the Industrial Tribunal has already been decided vide award dated 21.11.2012. Counsel submits that the copy of the award dated 21.11.2012 has already been placed on record by the respondents, so under these circumstances, this petition has become infructuous.

¶24

Since the dispute raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal has already been decided by passing the award dated 21.11.2012, so under the changed circumstances, this petition has become infructuous.

¶25

The writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. Pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed.

¶26

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶27

KuD/17

Hari Ram v. Po, Industrial Tribunal Kota

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Ram v. Po, Industrial Tribunal Kota

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

Kamlesh Kumar Gurjar S/O Shri Dev Kishan Gurjar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Manoj Kumar S/O Shri Siyaram Vs Chairman, Rajasthan Sub Ordinate and Ministerial Service Selection Board

Chothmal Dhanaka Vs Life Insurance Corp of India Ltd. Anr.

Mohan Singh Vs Judge Labour Court and Anr.

Nand Kumari Vs State and Ors.

Shambhu Lal and Ors. Vs State and Ors.