AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rekha Sharma, J.—The subject matter of the present writ-petition is an order dated May 22, 2007 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, North & North-West District, declaring Respondent No. 4 a ''protected workman'' under the provisions of Section 33(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and under Rule 61 (4) of the Industrial Dispute (Central) Rule, 1957 for the year 1999-2000.
Much prior to the passing of the aforesaid order, Respondent No. 4 was dismissed from service on April 16, 1999. The dismissal order passed against him was set-aside by the Labour Court but in lieu of reinstatement, he was granted compensation of Rs. 3 lacs. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court in not granting him the relief of reinstatement, he filed a writ-petition in this Court which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge vide order dated March 30, 2009. Not satisfied, the workman filed a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench but that too was dismissed.
Having regard to the fact that after the passing of the order declaring Respondent No. 4 a ''protected workman'', no order of reinstatement was passed in his favour and he was only held entitled to a sum of Rs. 3 lacs, I am of the view that the present writ-petition has been virtually rendered infructuous. Accordingly, it is dismissed as such.
It is submitted that the Petitioner has also alleged that Respondent No. 3, namely, Sunder Lal Jain Hospital Karamchari Union has no connection with the Petitioner. Since the main relief sought in the writ petition is with regard to the order dated May 22, 2007, I am passing no order on whether the aforesaid Union has any connection with the Petitioner.
For the fore-going reasons, the writ-petition is dismissed.