INDIAN AIRLINES LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE MINISTRY OF LABOUR, NEW DELHI
C.M.P./313/2025 · 2025-07-04
Sanjay Prasad
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 9545 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 9545 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:JHHC:17980
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C. M. P. No. 313 of 2025
….
Indian Airlines Ltd. now known as Air India Ltd. Through its Authorized representative Registered Office at 113 Gurudwara, Rakab Ganj Road, PO and PS- New Delhi, Regd. Office at Block 4, Level 6 Vatika One –on-One, IDC, Industrial Development Area Section 16,Gurugram-122007
…… Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India through the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi
2. Secretary, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi
3. Central Government, Industrial Tribunal No. 1 through its Presiding Officer, Bench at Dhanbad, Jharkhand
4. Nilachal Das R/o Hinoo Saket Nagar, PO and PS- Doranda, Distt- Ranchi, State- Jharkhand
…… Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate
For the OP Nos 1 to 3 : Mr. Anil Kumar Add. SCI
Mr.Abhijeet Kumar Singh,CGC
Mr. Surya Harsh Mishra, AC to Add. SCI
For the O.P. No. 4 : Mr. Nipun Bakshi, Advocate
Mr. Shubham Sinha, Advocate
…..
03/04.07.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
2. The instant C. M. P. No. 313 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for restoration of W. P. (S) No. 5244 of 2006, which was dismissed for default vide order dated 29.07.2024 passed by this Court.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that due to circumstances beyond control of the petitioner, the paneled counsel could not appear on
29.07.2024. However, learned counsel for the petitioner shall careful in future to argue the case on merit and hence, C.M.P. No. 313 of 2025 may be allowed and W. P. (S) No. 5244 of
2025:JHHC:17980
-2-
2006 may be restored to its original file.
4.
Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 1 to 3 and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 4 raised no objection.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in view of the submissions made above, the present C. M. P. No. 313 of 2025 is allowed. W. P. (S) No. 5244 of 2006 is restored to its original file.
6. Office is directed to place this case before the Appropriate Bench as per roster.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Kamlesh/