Sh. Varinder Kumar Mahajan And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 30 May, 2009

[Cites 1, Cited by 2]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sh. Varinder Kumar Mahajan And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 30 May, 2009

Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH.

                                                    C.W.P. No. 2777 of 2009
                                         DATE OF DECISION : 30.05.2009

Sh. Varinder Kumar Mahajan and others

                                                           .... PETITIONERS

                                   Versus

Union of India and others

                                                        ..... RESPONDENTS


CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL


Present:    Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate,
            for the petitioners.

            Ms. K.K. Kahlon, Advocate,
            for respondent No.1.

            Mr. H.N. Mehtani, Advocate,
            for respondents No.2 and 3.

                         ***

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) The petitioners, who were working in Kharar Textile Mills, Kharar - respondent No.3, which has been closed vide order dated 6.1.2009 (Annexure P-8), have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing direction to the respondents not to terminate their services on the closure of respondent No.3 mill, which is a unit of National Textile Corporation Limited.

It is the case of the petitioners that even if respondent No.3 mill has been closed, they being employees of the National Textile Corporation CWP No. 2777 of 2009 -2- Limited (hereinafter referred to as `NTC') are entitled to be adjusted in other units of NTC. In the replication, the petitioners have specifically stated that they have no objection if they are transferred to any unit of NTC any where in India.

Counsel for respondents No.2 and 3, on instructions from Shri D.K. Sharma, Acting General Manager of NTC, states that the petitioners shall not be retrenched on account of closure of respondent No.3 mill and they may be transferred to other units of NTC. However, in case, the NTC wants to retrench the services of the petitioner by treating them as workers of NTC, they can do so in accordance with law.

In view of the statement, made by counsel for respondents No.2 and 3, counsel for the petitioner does not want to press this petition.

Petition is, accordingly, dismissed as not pressed.

May 30, 2009                                ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
ndj                                                  JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court