Back
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI
Annavaram Concrete Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Tehsildar Ramnagar Barabanki – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard Dr. R.K. Srivastava and Sri Nishchal Jagdhari, the learned counsel for petitioner in Writ (C) No. 1004625 of 2008, Sri Satish Chandra Kashish, the learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ (C) No. 1001062 of 2013, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State and Sri Virendra Mishra, the learned counsel for the private opposite party Concrete Fabricators Karmchari Union, Burhwal, Barabanki in both the Writ Petitions and perused the records.
2. Writ (A) No. 1004625 of 2008 had been dismissed for want of prosecution by means of an order dated 08.04.2019. An application for recall (IA-No. 7 of 2024) along with an application for condonation of delay (IA No. 6 of 2024) in filing recall application have been filed by the petitioner. The applications are supported with duly sworn affidavits. Accordingly, the applications are allowed. Delay in filing recall application is hereby condoned and the order dated 08.04.2019 is hereby recalled. Writ (A) No. 1004625 of 2008 is restored to its original number.
3. Writ (C) No. 1004625 of 2008 has been filed challenging validity of an order dated 11.09.2008, passed by the Presidi
The court emphasized the necessity of proper notice in proceedings, ruling that failure to serve notice justifies setting aside an ex-parte award.
Point of law : Supreme Court categorically observed that test that has to be applied is whether defendant honestly and sincerely intended to remain present when the suit was called on for hearing and....
The Labour Court retains jurisdiction to entertain applications to set aside ex-parte awards beyond thirty days when principles of natural justice are not adhered to.
The court emphasized the power of the tribunal to regulate its own procedure and the principle that technical and procedural lapses should not hinder substantial justice.
The appropriate government lacks jurisdiction under Section 33C(1) to issue recovery orders without prior adjudication of the workers' claims, emphasizing that such claims must arise from recognized ....
Point of Law - The only contention raised by the petitioner is that the recovery proceedings are filed beyond the period of limitation provided under section 33C(1) of the I.D. Act, which stipulates ....
The management's failure to appear and contest the case justified the ex-parte Award for reinstatement of the workman with back wages, as per the Industrial Disputes Act.
The court reaffirmed that due process and the principle of natural justice must be upheld, particularly ensuring proper notice is served before ex parte decisions are made.
The Labour Court does not become functus officio after the award has become enforceable, as far as the ex parte award is concerned. It is within the powers of the Labour Court/Tribunal to entertain a....
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
