Discussed a writ petition filed against labour authorities which was subsequently dismissed due to the non-appearance of the petitioner counsel since the hearing date.
No order as the writ petition was dismissed for default.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO.26645 OF 1995
DATE: 24th October 2006
Between:
B.Sunder Shetty, s/o Srinivas Shetty, Hindu, aged 57 years, r/o H.No.15/15, Doctors Colony, Saroornagar, Hyderabad.
… Petitioner.
And
1. The Labour Officer, Circle-III, Hyderabad, (Authority U/s. 51 of A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988), T.Anjaiah Bhavan, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad and 2 others.
… Respondents.
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed questioning proceedings of the second respondent-The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, in SA/28/95 dated 06.9.1995.
2. When the writ petition was called on 26.9.2006, learned counsel for the petitioner was absent. Even today when the matter, which is posted “for dismissal”, is called he is not present.
3. In view of this, the writ petition is dismissed for default. No costs.
24.10.2006
BSB
B.Sunder Shetty
The Labour Officer, Circle-III, Hyderabad
The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (implied as second respondent)
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
