Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 50505 (ALL)

SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ELECTRICITY STORE DIVISION AND ANOTHER v. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT (4) AND 2 OTHERS

WRIC/13372/2024 · 2025-05-15

Dinesh Pathak

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:81740 Court No. - 37 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13372 of 2024 Petitioner :- Superintending Engineer, Electricity Store Division And Another Respondent :- Presiding Officer, Labour Court (4) And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Pal Counsel for Respondent :- Adarsh Singh,C.S.C.,Indra Raj Singh Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2. It is submitted that award dated 10.05.2001 passed in Adjudication Case No. 136 of 2000, arising out of proceeding under Section 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has already been assailed in Writ-C No. 38476 of 2001. However, said writ petition was dismissed in default vide order dated 24.03.2021. Consequent thereto, a recovery order dated 06.12.2023 (Annexure no.14) has been passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court (4) Kanpur Nagar, in Misc. Case No. 22 of 2021 and in pursuance thereof, recovery notice dated 18.03.2024 has been issued. Thus, recovery order dated 06.12.2023 and recovery notice dated 18.03.2024 are under challenge in the instant writ petition. In view of the order dated 29.05.2024, whereby, Writ-C No. 38476 of 2001 is restored, instant writ petition has become infructuous, therefore, same may be dismissed as infructuous. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection to the prayer as made by learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. As such, instant writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. Order Date :- 16.5.2025 Sumit K. Digitally signed by :- SUMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad