M/S DIVYA PHARMACY, THROUGH ITS MANAGER, DIVYA YOG MANDIR TRUST, KANKHAL, DISTRICT HARIDWAR, UTTARAKHAND Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, CIVIL SECRETARIAT, DEHRADUN,
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
M/S Divya Pharmacy, Through Its Manager, Divya Yog Mandir Trust, Kankhal, District Haridwar, Uttarakhand
State Of Uttarakhand Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Labour, Civil Secretariat, Dehradun,
Click here to view full judgement.
B.S. Verma, J. -
(1.) (Stay Application No. 4935 of 2012).
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner files supplementary affidavit. The same is taken on record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief: -
a) issue writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/direction, directing the respondent no. 1 to denotify the impugned notification dated 9th of May 2012 issued by respondent no. 1 in exercise of powers conferred under sections 3 & 7(ii) of the Act and/or set aside the aforesaid notification.
b) Award costs;
c) Pass any such further and other orders as it may deem fit and proper on the facts and in the circumstances hereof.
Mr. N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 has submitted that the impugned notification has been issued by the State Government in compliance of the order dated20 -12 -2011 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1761 of 2006(M/S) Dawa Udyog Kamgar Union Haridwar having its office At 951/II/I, BHEL, Ranipur, Haridwar, through its Secretary Sri Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others (Annexure 1 to the supplementary affidavit), wherein the petitioner herein was one of the respondents. In the said writ petition, the recommendation made to the State Government to refer the dispute for adjudication and the consequential order of the State Government referring the dispute under Section 4 -K of the industrials Act were set aside. The writ petition was allowed and a writ of mandamus was issued directing the State Government to enforce the settlement dated 21 -05 -2005, which has been inadvertently typed in the operative portion of the order as 21 -5 -2006, which was arrived at between the petitioner and respondent no. 4 in terms of Section 7(ii) of the Act and it was also directed that the order shall be passed by the State Government without four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of that order. In compliance of the order of this Court, the impugned Notification has been issued.
(3.) LEARNED Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has contended that the said order dated 20 -12 -2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 1761 of 2006 (M/S) has been assailed by filing Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Apex Court, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure -11 to the writ petition. In that SLP, notices were issued on the special leave petitions and interim relief application, and contempt proceeding was also stayed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.