Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/2291/2026 of M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION Vs ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER on 11 August 2026
SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/2291/2026 M/s Sahara India Mass Communication --Petitioner Versus Assistant Labour Commissioner --Respondent Hon’ble Manoj
UKHC010132492026
2026:UHC:7119
SL.
No.
Date
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
WPMS/2291/2026
M/s Sahara India Mass Communication
--Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Labour Commissioner
--Respondent
Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Mr. J.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Mr. N.K. Papnoi, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
3. Petitioner has challenged order dated 05.06.2026 passed by Prescribed Authority in proceedings under The Uttarakhand Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978. By the said order, petitioner was directed to deposit ₹1,97,64,052/- towards pending dues of the workmen.
4. Perusal of the record reveals that petitioner has filed application seeking review of that order, which is pending before the Prescribed Authority. Since petitioner has availed a remedy of review, therefore, he cannot simultaneously approach this Court for challenging the order dated 05.06.2026 passed by Prescribed Authority. No one can be permitted to seek two remedy simultaneously.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that Prescribed Authority
UKHC010132492026
2026:UHC:7119 be directed to decide the review application.
6. Whether Prescribed Authority can review its order in the absence of any express provision contained in the relevant Statute is a debatable question, therefore, this Court refrains from issuing such direction in favour of petitioner.
7. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to press his review application before the Prescribed Authority.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J)
11.08.2026 Aswal
NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2026.08.11 05:51:33 -07'00'