Dharamraj Yadav v. State Of Haryana And Others



  
    
  

 




  


 !"# $% #&'('$) **
 





        

  


  + , * -
  - 

  

  

 

    

  

  !"

 "



!



  #$"# 

   % &

'''''

 -  *

 , 1.

Petitioner (Dharamraj Yadav) has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for directing the respondents to initiate proceedings against the Management and its responsible person under Section 29 read with Sections 32 and 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for non-implementation of settlement dated 10.10.2014, which was arrived at between the Management and the regular workers of M/s Metro Ortem Limited, Village Sidhrawali, Gurgaon. It is further prayed that respondents No.1 and 2 be directed to decide representations dated 15.10.2022 (Annexures P-6 and P-7). APURVA 2023.09.26 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh



  2.

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant writ petition has become infructuous as the prosecution has already been launched.

3.

Learned State counsel has also conceded the aforesaid fact. 4.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the instant petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous, however, respondent No.3 would be at liberty to take recourse to his remedies in accordance with law. 5.

""  (")*  """ "

**

 - 
  + ,   -(.    .% / ,   0"

  .% APURVA 2023.09.26 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh