•aix1'^? •ff ^ r .r'\o9'^ SSijift" r F?i-'F?r«( XN IHE BIGS COOKS OF JXTOIC&TOBE Aa: BIIASPOR (C.S.) WRIT EETITION N0:5%2-/2006 PE'EITIONER ^ Reshaa Singh, S/o. Dilip Singh, Aged about 61 years, Ex-Driver, Bhilai Steel Plant, Plant Vehicle Pool Sarage, R/o. Camp No. 1, Qr. No. A/131, Bhilai, Dist. Diirg(C.&) BESPONDENIS VERSOS ^ ^ ;;<»\/l^.!- ^-2 '<v Steel Authority of India Iiimited, Bhilai Steel Plant, Through its Managing Director, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Dist. Durg (C.G) General Manager I/c. (MSU), Steel Authorxty of India lunited, Bbilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.j Supdt.(Garages), Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Dist. Durg (C.G) WRIT ^TITIQN TBIDER JUl'EICT.B 226/227 OF SHE CONSTITUTION OF IND1& FOR ISSliaNCE OF BRIT IN 'mE N&TOBE OF CEKXIGB.KKI, MBNDifltOS, PROHIBITION BKD FQR PTHER SUT'EaBI.E HRIT OR HRITS, ORDER OR OSOEKSSS, DIRECTION OR DIKECIIOKS ETC. The petitioner, above named, most humbly and respectfully subialts as under :- ~[ —^ i s^T --^wwfl, ®Til'M4is,fsi<ni<-iy . ^),-f.^,^2-/ex ameB" sf^V sii^i^ili^NT wiiw^rgnw wnw^ft'aai^i SB : Hon'Me Shri Manindra Mohsm Shrivdstafa.J. 12-07-2010 Shri H. S. Ahluwalia, counsel forthe betitioner. Shri Brijesh Singh, counsel appear^ on behalf of Shri A S. Gahaiwar, counsel for respondents. Learned counsel for the pelitioner (>rays that the petitioner had eariier preferred a petitton before the Labour Co|irt, Durg, which was dismissed on 16-02-1991. This fact was however not discltised. Respondents in their return have stated that the petitioner had eariier was dismissed and U)is fact was '^i<iw^l *llM<nf ^f fe^ Tf^i^R ^? aifiiiT an^i approached Labour Court and his petitior^ i suppressed while filing this petitfon. While approaching this Court undej- tndia, it is expected thatthe petitioner to cc^ne with ctean hands and disctosing all relevant facts. The fact that the petittonej Articte 226 of the Constibition of had earlier chatten^d the order of dismissal before the Labour Court, ougt<t to have been disclosed by the petitioner h this petttion. However, taking i|rto consideratton ttiat the peftioner was working as a Driver, this Court inctin^d to accept the prayer af teafned counsel fbr the petitioner for withdrawal cf the petifon. He submits that the petitioner may be granted liberty to take suc^ remedy as may be avaitabte to him against the order earlier passed by the Labofir Court. Prayer is altowed. Accordingly, the petitton is dismisse|l as wittidrawn. The petitioner is at libertyto take such other remedyas may beiavailable to him against ttie order of the Labour Court. tt is however made clear tjiat this Court has not expressed any i opinion on the merits ofthe case. - Sd/- Manindra IVIohan Shrivastava Judge Tumane