KULDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF HP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has laid challenge to order dated 17.6.2011, passed in Application No. 317 of 2011, by the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala, whereby the learned Tribunal on the basis of reply filed by the respondent as well as statement having been made by the learned Deputy District Attorney, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 33 (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, as having become infructuous.

(2.) Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate, representing the petitioner while inviting attention of this Court to the aforesaid order vehemently argued that no order, if any, could be passed by the learned Presiding Officer, merely on the basis of reply as well as submissions having been made by the learned Deputy District Attorney, without affording opportunity of being heard/ to rebut the averments/ submissions contained in the reply filed by the respondent-State to the application filed under Sec. 33 (c) under the Industrial Disputes Act.

(3.) Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Additional Advocate General, while refuting the aforesaid claim of learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that bare perusal of impugned order, nowhere suggests that prayer, if any, was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner at that stage for time to file rejoinder/counter to the reply filed by the respondent. Mr. Negi further contended that on the date of passing of this order, the petitioner along with his counsel was present and as such, it cannot be said that order was passed without hearing the parties.