R S SINGH Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking following reliefs:

(2.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent stating that the petitioner has suppressed several vital facts. The letter written by him is subsequent to the order of reinstatement of the petitioner in service. It was open to the Management to take the order of the learned Labour Court in appeal, however in view of the letter written by the petitioner, the Management did not challenge the order of Labour Court by filing Writ Petition Th(sic) all the consequential monetary benefits were given to the petitioner which is reflected in order dated 07.11.1996. On 17.04.1997 the petitioner again wrote a letter for grant of entire earned leave along with encashment of earned leave and it was also given to him In these facts, it has been stated that the writ petition is fit to he dismissed

(3.) Heard counsel appearing for both the parties and (sic)used the documents on record.