The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a strike notice as infructuous because no representation was filed by the petitioner and the interim relief sought had been vacated in an earlier order.
Writ Petition dismissed as infructuous; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions pending stood dismissed.
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.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.14687 OF 2001
ORDER:
This Writ Petition has been filed to declare the strike notice dated 23.06.2001 issued by the first respondent-Union as illegal, unjustified and arbitrary and for other consequential reliefs.
Interim order was passed in WPMP.Nos.18373 and 18374 of 2001 on 18.07.2001, as prayed for, i.e., restraining the first respondent and its members from restoring to and/or continuing strike or in any manner disrupting the normal working of the Dredgers/Tug of the petitioner deployed in Major Ports, Minor Ports and Defence Establishments in the country on 20.07.2001 or any other subsequent date pending the Writ Petition and directing the third respondent to instruct the Shipping Masters concerned to give effect to the directions of this Court relating to strike by the first respondents and its members on board the vessels belonging to the petitioner in Major Ports, Minor Ports and Defence Establishments in the country, respectively. Then, the first respondent filed WVMP.No.3598 of 2003 to vacate the interim order dated 18.07.2001. This Court, by order dated 19.02.2004, allowed WVMP.No.3598 of 2003 holding that no proceedings under Section 150(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, were pending prohibiting the strike and vacated the interim order dated 18.07.2001.
On 10.06.2013, learned counsel for the respondents reported that the matter has become infructuous. As there was no representation for the petitioner, the matter was directed to be posted to today under the caption “For Dismissal. Even today, none appears nor any representation is made on behalf of the petitioner.
Having regard to the fact that this Court has already vacated the interim order dated 18.07.2001 long back i.e., on 19.02.2004, it is clear that the matter has become infructuous.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There
shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand dismissed.
___________________ (B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J)
17th June 2013 RRB
Petitioner (unnamed)
Union (First Respondent)
Third Respondent
B.CHANDRA KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
