AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Mohanta, learned advocate appears on behalf petitioner and Mr. Panda, learned advocate, for opposite parties.
Mr. Panda submits, his clients are the management. He files memo of date disclosing order dated 18th March, 2020 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) and submits, the writ petition has become infructuous.
Mr. Mohanta submits, impugned are annexures 5, 7 and 9. Annexure 5 is enquiry report dated 23rd March, 2012. Annexure 7 is order dated 6th April, 2016 and annexure 9 is order dated 5th January, 2017. Both orders were made by the CGIT.
It appears, the management applied for approval under section 33(2)(b) in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, received by the CGIT on 20th July, 2012. The application was found as defective and finding in subsequent order dated 5th January, 2017 that there was no defect. The CGIT said, the workman’s contention on the management not having simultaneously filed for permission would be decided on merits. Mr. Mohanta has further contention that the CGIT in subsequently saying no defect was there, reviewed its own order without power to do so.
The memo filed today discloses final order dated 18th March, 2020. Thereby approval was granted to the management. Petitioner may have a cause arising from said order. However, in view of the same the interlocutory orders stand eclipsed.
We note that the writ petition was presented on 17th February, 2016. There was direction for issuance of notice on 17th April, 2017, after which precious little happened. Today Mr. Panda has filed the memo and given copy to Mr. Mohanta. The workman must find his remedy.
With the above the writ petition is disposed of.
…………………………………