SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(All) 1184

M.C.AGARWAL
PRAG VANASPATI PRODUCTS – Appellant
Versus
ASSTT. LABOUR COMMISSIONER, ALIGARH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
DINESH DWIVEDI, K.P.AGARWAL

M. C. AGARWAL, J.

( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, an employer, challenges an order dated 30. 12. 1994, copy of which is Annexure-7 to the writ petition, whereby the Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Aligarh, declined to register a settlement for industrial dispute in terms of Section 6b of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing the said respondent and the other respondents, who are workmen to register the alleged settlement.

( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri DInesh Dwivedi and Sri K. P. Agarwal. Senior Advocate for the respondents and also the learned standing counsel.

( 3 ) THE petitioners Industry named prag Vanaspati Products was afflicted with labour problems and it ultimately declared a lock-out from 30. 11. 1991. The State Government by its order dated 16. 6. 1992 prohibited the lock-out in the Company for a period of 180 days. The petitioner challenged the said order by means of a Writ Petition No. 21615 of 1992 which was allowed by this Court by order dated 11. 11. 1992. The prohibition order was quashed. The workmen approached the Honble Supreme C










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top