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

2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 804043

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
NEEL METAL KAMGAR SANGATHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
WPMS 1569 / 2024



Office Notes,

reports, orders

SL. or proceedings

Date COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

No or directions and

Registrar’s order

with Signatures

WPMS 1569/ 2024

Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, Advocate,

for the petitioners.

Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing

Counsel, for the State.

Mr. K.P. Upadhay, Senior

Advocate, assisted by Mr. Imran Ali Khan, Advocate for the respondent no. 5

and 6.

(2) This writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 18.9.2025 with a direction to the Conciliation Officer to conclude the conciliation proceedings within four weeks and it was provided that for a period of four weeks, status quo qua the posting of petitioner no. 2 to

5 shall be maintained.

(3) Today, the matter is listed on stay extension application (MCC/9/2025). Learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners contends that the Conciliation Officer has forwarded his recommendation to the appropriate government and the appropriate government has to pass appropriate order under Section 4(k) of UP Industrial Disputes Act. He submits that employer is compelling the petitioners to join duties at the transferred places in different States. He submits that if petitioners join duties at transferred places, then it will not be possible for

them to pursue the matter before the Labour Court, to which the dispute would be referred. He submits that the period within which appropriate government will refer the dispute to the Labour Court is also uncertain and in this uncertainty, if petitioners are compelled to join at the transferred places, then it will lead to miscarriage of justice.

(4) Learned State Counsel assures that if the Conciliation Officer has submitted failure report, then the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the concerned Labour Court within four weeks.

(5) In such view of the matter, protection granted to the petitioners vide order dated 18.9.2025 against transfer shall continue for a period of six weeks from today. Stay extension application stands disposed of accordingly.

(6) It is made clear that no further application for extension of protection shall be entertained. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

3.11.2025 Pr

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 Back to top