The High Court dismissed two connected writ petitions (W.P.No.22451 of 1999 and W.P.No.4405 of 2000) without examining the merits of the dispute. Counsel for both parties concurred that adjudicating the validity of the impugned Labour Court Award served no useful purpose.
No costs.
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 MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
W.P.No.22451 of 1999 & W.P.No.4405 of 2000
COMMON ORDER:
Sri V.Narsimha Goud, Learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.22451 of 1999 would submit that, while the petitioner in this Writ Petition is also the respondent in W.P.No.4405 of 2000, the notice sent by him to the petitioner (M.Venkat Rao) was returned un-served, and he has no instructions to appear in W.P.No.4405 of 2000. Sri B.G. Ravindra Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.4405 of 2000, would submit that the petitioner – company is no longer functioning, and he is unaware of the whereabouts of the Director. Both Counsel would agree that no useful purpose would be served in adjudicating the dispute in both these Writ Petitions wherein the validity of the award in I.D.No.104 of 1994 dated 21.1.1999 passed by the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad is under challenge.
In view of the submission made by counsel on either side, I see no reason to examine the validity of the award, in I.D.No.104 of 1994 dated 21.1.1999 on its merits. Both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs.
____________ 06-09-2012 asp
Ramesh Ranganathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
