Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 13862 (JHR)

R I T E PVT I T I REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SRI SOUMENDRA MANDAL v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND REPRR THR ITS COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY LABOUR EMPLOYMENT And TRAINING AND

WPC/338/2015 · 2025-07-24

Anil Kumar Choudhary

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

( 2025:JHHC:20375 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C). No.338 of 2015 ------ R.I.T.E. Pvt. I.T.I., represented through its Director, Sri Soumendra Mandal, aged about 47 years, S/o Sudam Mandal, at Sonua Road, P.O. & P.S.-Chakradharpur, Ward No.07, District-West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, Jharkhand. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand represented through its Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Labour Employment and Training Department, Nepal House, Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. Director of Labour Employment and Training, Nepal House, Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. National Council for Vocational Training (NCVT), Institution of Engineering Building, IInd Floor, 2-Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002, Director General of Employment & Training (DGE&T), Sharma Sakti Bhawan, New Delhi. 4. Quality Council of India (QCI), Institution of Engineering Building, IInd Floor, 2-Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002. 5. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi. 6. Director General, Directorate General of Employment and Training (DGET) Shram Shakti Bhawan, New Delhi. 7. Deputy Director General, Directorate General of Employment & Training (DGET), Shram Shakti Bhawan, New Delhi. .... .... .... Respondents ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : None For the State : Mr. Pawan Kr. Pathak, CGC : Mr. Vineet Prakash, AC For the Respondents : Mr. Hemant Kr. Shikarwar, Advocate ------ Order No.09 Dated- 24/07/2025 No one turns up on behalf of the petitioner in spite of repeated calls. Learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel for the respondents submit that there is no merit in this case, hence, the petitioner is not diligent in prosecuting this case. Accordingly, this case is dismissed for non-prosecution. Abhiraj/ (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)