State Of U. P. vs Presiding Officer Labour Court

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(All) 789

J. J. MUNIR
State Of U. P. – Appellant
Versus
Presiding Officer Labour Court – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Suman Sirohi S.C.
For the Respondent: Diptiman Singh, S.C.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Shreeprakash Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Diptiman Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-workman.

2. This writ petition is directed against an award of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Lucknow dated 27.01.2012 (published on 12.04.2012) passed in Adjudication Case no.252 of 2005. Also impugned is an order of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Lucknow dated 07.03.2013 passed in Misc. Case no.51 of 2012, rejecting an application by the petitioners, seeking a review of the award.

3. It appears that an application dated 25.09.2003 was made by the second respondent, Ram Chandra[hereinafter referred to as “the workman”] to the Conciliation Officer, Bareilly, under Section 2-A of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947[for short “the Act of 1947”]. The application aforesaid was made with an acknowledged delay of 12 years, 3 months and 25 days. It was accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of the delay in making it.

4. It was said i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(All) 789

J. J. MUNIRState Of U. P. – AppellantVersusPresiding Officer Labour Court – Respondent

Cases Referred (4)

J. J. MUNIR
State Of U. P. – Appellant
Versus
Presiding Officer Labour Court – Respondent