JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)October 29, 2004

T-1079 de 2004

The official text of this ruling is in Spanish and is shown as published by the Colombian authorities.

Reporting justice Jaime Araujo Rentería

✓Claimant Jose David Vidales Martinez Vs. Juzgado Quinto Laboral Del Circuito De Ibague Y Otro

✓
Topic · hard data
Derecho Al Debido Proceso De Exfuncionario Del Instituto Departamental De Transito Y Transporte Del Tolima Despedido Sin Autorización De Autoridad Por Gozar De Fuero Sindical. Solicita Se Acojan Las Pretensiones De La Demanda Especial Por Fuero Sindical.
01

Topics and subtopics of the ruling

✓What the ruling decides and analyzes, as indexed by the Court's case-law reporter's office. Each topic links to every decision that addresses it.

Via De Hecho De Juez Laboral
  • No ordenó reintegro de los trabajadores aforados que fueron despedidos sin permiso judicial
Fuero Sindical De Empleado Publico
  • Características y personas que lo integran
Fuero Sindical
  • Se requiere el permiso sindical aun en casos de liquidación o reestructuración
Via De Hecho
  • Procedencia excepcional de tutela para controvertir interpretaciones judiciales
5 topics · 5 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
02

What it decided

This decision records no constitutional review holdings. This is common in tutela rulings and orders, where the decision does not concern a legal provision.
·

Operative part (Resuelve)

✓Verbatim text of the decision, as it appears in the ruling. It complements the structured holdings above.

  1. Primero. Confirmar el fallo proferido por la Corte Suprema de Justicia - Sala de Casación Laboral, de fecha 8 de junio de 2004, por el cual denegó el amparo solicitado por el señor José David Vidales Martínez, pero por las razones expuestas en esta sentencia.
  2. Segundo. Por Secretaría, líbrese la comunicación de que trata el artículo 36 del Decreto 2591 de 1991.
Verbatim text · source: operative part of the ruling
03

The bench that decided

We distinguish who appears in the ruling (signature, vote or concurrence) from who probably sat on the Court on that date. The difference is shown by color and shape.

Separate opinions — text available1
ConcurrenceManuel José Cepeda Espinosa
Official text from the case-law reporter · the most valuable part of the ruling: the positions that did not carry the majority.
04

How it connects

Each decision is a node in the case-law network: it cites some and is cited by others. Follow the threads.

The document’s networkthe most influential links · node size is how often the Court cites it
constitutional review unification tutela

The indexed topics and subtopics of this decision are above, in Topics and subtopics of the ruling.