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

2012 Supreme(All) 1095

B.AMIT STHALEKAR
RAUNAQ AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS – Appellant
Versus
LABOUR COURT, BAREILLY – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
S.S. Nigam for the Petitioner; C.S.C. and S.C. Dwivedi for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.—This writ petition was taken up for arguments yesterday on 24.4.2012 in the revised list. Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 3. However, due to paucity of time the arguments could not be concluded, therefore, the matter has been posted for today. Today, again nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 3. Notices were issued to the respondent No. 3 on 25.8.1998 but till date no counter-affidavit has been filed in this case. In the circumstances, the Court is left with no option except to proceed to hear the matter in the absence of respondent No. 3.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 6.5.1998 by which a second reference has been made by the Dy. Labour Commissioner, Moradabad referring a dispute regarding termination of the respondent No. 3 to the Labour Court, Bareilly.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that an industrial dispute was raised by the respondent No. 3 by filing an application under section 2-A of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which was registered as CP case No. 111 of 1996. A reference was made by the Dy. Labour Commissioner, Moradabad referring the d


















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