Ashok Kumar Garg vs M/S.Hindustan Zinc ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5695 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:24986]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4942/2006

Ashok Kumar Garg S/o Shri Mukut Lal, aged about 36 years, R/o House No.504-A/3, Prem Nagar Delhi Road, Opposite -Raj Cinema Theater, Gurgaon -122001 (Haryana).

----Petitioner Versus

1. M/s. Hindustan Zinc Limited, Yashad Bhazwan, Udaipur, (Raj.).

2. General Manager (Dy.) Hindustan Zinc Limited, Zinc Sinelter P.O. Visakhapatnam (A.P.)

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nes Gupta for Mr. G.J. Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kamini Joshi

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

07/08/2023 I.A. No.1/2022:

1. The present application has been moved on behalf of the

respondents, inter-alia, stating that after dis-investment, writ

petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India against the

company namely - Hindustan Zinc Ltd., is not maintainable.

2. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the

Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.236/1984 (P. Paliwal vs. Hindustan Zinc Limited and Ors.)

decided on 23.11.2017 which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in P. Paliwal vs. Hindustan Zinc Limited & Ors. (Special

Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 12354-12357/2018) decided on

10.12.2021.

3. In the case of P. Paliwal (supra), it was held as under:-

[2023:RJ-JD:24986] (2 of 2) [CW-4942/2006]

"22. Whilst it may be true that the workmen had no role in the dis-investment of the Company but that would be irrelevant. As long as dis-investment stares this Court in its face, the change in the character of Hindustan Zinc Limited has to be taken judicial notice of ... ..................................................................... ........................................................................ ........................................................................

25. Holding that as of today the writ petitions by the workmen are not maintainable against Hindustan Zinc Limited we leave open remedies which the writ petitioners can avail of as per law and for purposes of limitation declare that time spent in this Court till date of this decision would be excluded while computing limitation."

4. In view of the judgment passed in the case of P. Paliwal

(supra), the application is allowed. The present writ petition is

dismissed as not maintainable. However, as observed in the case

of P. Paliwal (supra), the petitioner would be at liberty to avail the

remedy available to him as per law and the time spent in this

Court, that is, from the date of filing of the present writ petition till

the date of decision, would be excluded while computing the

limitation.

5. All pending applications also stand disposed of.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 268-Ramesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)