The Acting Chief Justice dismissed a Writ Petition for default, ruling that since the petition was already dismissed against the contesting 1st respondent, it must also be dismissed against the 2nd proforma respondent.
Petition dismissed against 1st and 2nd respondents; miscellaneous petitions closed; 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.
THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
WRIT PETITION No.13396 OF 2007
ORDER :
Heard Sri N. Madhava Reddy, Learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC.
This Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the award passed by the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad in I.D. No.36 of 2002 dated 21.09.2005. The award was passed by the Labour Court on its jurisdiction being invoked by the 1st respondent-workman under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Writ Petition was dismissed for default as against the 1st respondent by the order of this Court dated 24.06.2011. The 2nd respondent is merely a proforma party. As the Writ Petition has already been dismissed against the contesting 1st respondent, it is liable to be dismissed against the 2nd respondent also. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. No costs.
________________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ
Date: 16.12.2016
MRKR
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition filed seeking quashment of an industrial award merits dismissal as against the proforma respondent after default dismissal against the contesting respondent.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
APSRTC (implied Applicant)
Workman (1st respondent)
Proforma Party (2nd respondent)
Ramesh Ranganathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
