NEEL METAL KAMGAR SANGATHAN v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
WPMS/1569/2024 · 2025-09-18
Manoj Kumar Tiwari
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 15366 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 15366 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
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