AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.P. Mehrotra, J.—Pursuant to the order dated 26.2.2007, the case has been put-up as an unlisted case today.
Sri K.C. Shukla, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 states that he gave written intimation to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, as per the directions given in the said order dated 26.2.2007.
Miss Bushra Maryam, learned Counsel for the petitioner is present.
I have heard Miss Bushra Maryam, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.C. Shukla, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3, has also been heard.
It appears that the petitioner moved applications before the respondents Nos. 1/2 and 3, inter alia, praying for referring the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication as to whether the closure declared by the respondent No. 4 was legal or illegal.
As no action was taken by the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 on the said applications of the petitioner, the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was filed by the petitioner, inter alia, making the following prayers:
(i) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to refer the case of illegal closure of the industrial establishment of respondent No. 4 to the competent Court.
(ii) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to summon the records of the illegal closure of the industrial establishment of the respondent No. 4 from the respondent No. 3 and pass the order of referring the case to the competent Court.
(iii) to issue any other writ direction or order or grant such other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and;
(iv) to award costs of the petition.
A counter affidavit in reply to the writ petition was filed on behalf of the respondent No. 4 on 19.5.2004.
Thereafter, a supplementary affidavit, sworn on 5.9.2006, has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 4.
It is, inter alia, stated in paragraph No. 5 of the aforesaid supplementary affidavit that the State Government has referred the dispute between the parties u/s 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Industrial Tribunal, Meerut along with list of labours.
Copy of the order of reference dated 31.1.2004 along with list of labours has been filed as Annexure S.A. 1 to the aforesaid supplementary affidavit.
Copy of the aforesaid supplementary affidavit was served on Miss. Bushra Maryam, learned Counsel for the petitioner on 5.9.2006.
It is submitted by Sri K.C. Shukla, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 that in view of the reference having been made by the State Government u/s 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the said order dated 31.1.2004, reliefs sought by the petitioner in the writ petition stand granted, and therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous.
Miss. Bushra Maryam, learned Counsel for the petitioner has fairly not disputed that in view of the reference order made by the State Government referring the dispute between the parties to the Industrial Tribunal, Meerut, u/s 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner has become infructuous.
In view of the above, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as shaving become infructuous.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.
However, on the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.