Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : N.P.GUPTA
VASU DEO SINDHI - Appellant
Versus
CHIF DEPOT MANAGER,R S R T C - Respondent
CIVIL WRIT 2643 Of 2006
Decided On : 05/29/2006
ADJOURNMENT - Labour Dispute - The court refused an adjournment request and summarily dismissed the writ petition challenging the findings of the Labour Court regarding the workman's entitlement to relief under Section 25-F, G, and H.
Fact of the Case:
The court refused an adjournment request and summarily dismissed the writ petition challenging the findings of the Labour Court regarding the workman's entitlement to relief under Section 25-F, G, and H.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the workman had worked for three months and that the dispute was raised after 14 years. It was also found that Section 25-F was not attracted, and there was no violation of Section 25-G and H, leading to the petitioner not being entitled to any relief.
Issues: The main issue was the workman's entitlement to relief under Section 25-F, G, and H, as determined by the Labour Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the findings that the workman had worked for a specific period, the dispute was raised after a significant delay, and there was no violation of the relevant sections, leading to the petitioner not being entitled to relief.
Final Decision: The writ petition was summarily dismissed by the court.
( 1 ) LEARNED counsel requested for adjournment. When the matter was listed last time on 25. 5. 2006, request was made on behalf of learned counsel for passing it over for the day, and it was assured that the learned counsel would be available today. Today, another counsel appears to make a request for adjournment, which I am not inclined to accept.
( 2 ) I have perused the impugned award (Annexure-7 ). The learned Labour Court has found that workman had worked in all for three months, and the dispute has been raised after 14 years. It was also found that Section 25-F is also not attracted, and there is nothing to show that there is any violation of Section 25-G and H, and thus, the petitioner has not been found entitled to any relief.
( 3 ) IN my view, the findings are not vitiated on any of the grounds available in my writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed summarily.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
