Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 549 (UTT)

Virendra Verma v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-09-06

V.K.BIST

body2016
JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief: “i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the learned Labour Court, Dehradun, District Dehradun to decide the Adjudication Case No. 26 of 2012, (Virendra Verma Vs. Hindustan National Glass & Industries Ltd. & others), as earliest as possible, preferably within the period, prescribed by this Hon’ble Court.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that he has worked with the party respondent from 1985 to 2010. On 19.10.2010, his services were terminated by the party respondent. He moved an application for referring his case to the Labour Court and, thereafter, the State Government referred the matter for adjudication of the Labour Court, Dehradun. The case was registered as Adjudication Case No. 26 of 2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though four years have passed, but the said adjudication case has not been decided by the Labour Court so far. He prayed that direction may be issued to the Labour Court, Dehradun to decide the Adjudication Case No. 26 of 2012 at the earliest. 3. While going through the records, I find that in the year 2014 also, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2796 of 2014, in which following order was passed on 19.12.2014: “Petitioner is a workman who has raised an industrial dispute which has been referred to Labour Court, Dehradun which is presently pending since 2010. An innocuous prayer has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a direction be given to the Labour court, Dehradun for expeditious disposal of the matter. In view thereof, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the learned Labour court to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties.” 4. Since this Court has already passed an order on 19.12.2014 directing the Labour Court, Dehradun to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties, I do not think that present writ petition is maintainable. In my considered view, the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court should have been more careful and should have tried for the early disposal of the said case. I have also perused the order sheet of the learned Labour Court. In my considered view, the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court should have been more careful and should have tried for the early disposal of the said case. I have also perused the order sheet of the learned Labour Court. From the perusal of the order sheet, it transpires that in spite of the direction given by this Court not to grant any unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties, several adjournments have been granted by the Labour Court without assigning any reason, which is not appreciable. 5. Since direction has already been issued in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2796 of 2014 for deciding the matter at the earliest, the present writ petition is closed. The learned Labour Court, Dehradun is expected to decide the said case without undue delay. 6. There will be no order as to costs. 7. Let a copy of this judgment be sent by the Registry to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun immediately for information.