The State challenged an award reinstating a terminated employee. Since the employee's services had been regularized by 2015, rendering the writ petition infructuous, the petition was 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.
WPMS No. 1698 of 2006 Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Tarun Lakhera, Brief Holder the State / petitioner.
Mr. Alok Mahra, Advocate for the respondent.
The petitioner, State, in this writ petition has challenged the impugned award dated 19th June, 2006. By the impugned award, the petitioners were directed to reinstate the respondent holding that the order of termination dated 1st March, 1998 and non taking of work was bad and they were directed to pay damages @ Rs.10,000/-.
When the writ petition was filed, the execution of the award was stayed subject to the condition of complying with Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act.
It has been informed by Mr. Alok Mahra, learned counsel for the respondents that the services of the respondent has been regularized since he has been working for a period more than five years prior to the enforcement of the Rules dated 30th December, 2011. The order of regularization dated 5th November, 2015 is taken on record.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that services of the respondent has been regularized now and there is no dispute, as such, to be agitated by this Court while scrutinizing the award.
In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed as having rendered infructuous.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
Shiv
Dated 26.07.2017
State
Respondent (Terminated Employee)
Sharad Kumar Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
