PUDUCHERRY SHASUN CHEMICALS Vs. LABOUR OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two matters came up on 12.1.2010. On that day, Mr. D. Bharathi representing Mr. S. Manoharan, learned Counsel for the petitioner informed that the subject matter of the writ petitions has become infructuous, since the failure report has been sent on 6.1.2010 and 7.1.2010 by the Conciliation Officer. Recording the same, this Court passed an oral order dismissing both the writ petitions as infructuous.

(2.) However, Mr. D. Bharathi subsequently representing before this Court that his statement was only in respect of W.P. No. 25209 of 2009 and not in respect of the other writ petition, namely W.P. No. 25210 of 2009. Therefore, the matter was directed to be posted before this Court 'for being mentioned'. Accordingly, today in the cause list, it appears as an item under the caption 'for being mentioned'.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent-Management is present. In the light of the stand taken by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the oral order passed on 12.1.2010 stands cancelled. After hearing the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the Writ Petition No. 25209 of 2009 alone will stand dismissed as infructuous, since it is admitted by both sides that failure report has been sent on 6.1.2010 and 7.1.2010 by the Conciliation Officer.