CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts(2003) 07 AHC CK 0123

Bachchan Lal Paswan vs General Manager (Northern Region), I.B.P.Co.Ltd.and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 31 July 2003

HON’BLE JUDGES
U.K.Dhaon, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No.1770 (S/S) of 2003

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 380 words

U.K. Dhaon, J.

1.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Arun Kumar Pandey and Shri Sudeep Seth, appearing on behalf of opposite parties No.1 to 3.

2.

The petitioner has approached this court against the order dated 13.1.2003 on 28.3.2003 and an ex parte order was passed by this court staying the operation of the order dated 13.1.2003.

3.

Shri Sudeep Seth, learned counsel for the opposite parties No.1 to 3 submits that a caveat was served upon the petitioner on 8.3.2003 and without giving any notice to the opposite parties No.1 to 3 the instant writ petition was filed and an ex parte stay order was obtained. He further submits that the proceedings for regularization were pending before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and on 24.1.2003 the petitioner also moved an application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act and this fact the petitioner has deliberately not stated in the writ petition. He further submits that at present the proceedings are pending before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal from where the opposite parties have received notice.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the Rejoinder Affidavit he has stated that the proceedings are pending before the Assistant Labour Commissioner against the order dated 13.1.2003.

5.

I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It is the admitted case of the parties that in proceedings for regularization pending before the Assistant Labour Commissioner an application was moved by the petitioner on 24.1.2003 apprising the Labour Court about the impugned order dated 13.1.2003. It is also not disputed that a caveat was served upon the petitioner on 8.3.2003. It was the moral duty of the petitioner to serve the copy upon the opposite parties No.1 to 3 before filing the writ petition. As there are concealment of material facts in the writ petition, the petitioner is not entitled for any discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by this Court. The petitioner has already availed a remedy before the Labour Court and the matter is also pending before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. The writ petition is dismissed. The interim order granted on 28.3.2003 is hereby discharged.

(Petition dismissed)