JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)December 12, 2017

T-724 de 2017

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

Reporting justice Antonio José Lizarazo Ocampo

✓Claimant Jairo Pozo·Respondent Ingenio Carmelita S.A.

✓
Topic · hard data
Accion De Tutela Para Obtener Reintegro Laboral. Improcedencia Por Existir Otro Medio De Defensa Judicial Y No Existir Perjuicio Irremediable.
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.

Accion De Tutela Para Obtener Reintegro Laboral
  • Procedencia excepcional
  • Improcedencia por existir otro medio de defensa judicial y no acreditarse perjuicio irremediable
1 topic · 2 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se atribuye al Ingenio Carmelita S.A. la vulneración de derechos fundamentales del actor, como consecuencia de dar por terminado unilateralmente el contrato de trabajo que tenían, a pesar de tener la calidad de prepensionado.

La referida relación laboral se realizó de manera verbal y la misma permaneció durante 34 años.

Por no cumplir con el requisito de subsidiariedad y no acreditar los elementos necesarios para otorgar un amparo transitorio, se declara IMPROCEDENTE la tutela impetrada.

Case-law reporter's text · normalized for reading (all caps → sentence case)
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. REVOCAR el fallo de tutela proferido, en primera instancia, por el Juzgado 22 Civil Municipal de Oralidad de Cali, el 10 de mayo de 2017, por medio del cual se nego el amparo de los derechos fundamentales del senor Jairo Pozo y, en su lugar, declarar IMPROCEDENTE el recurso de amparo impetrado.
  2. SEGUNDO. Por Secretaria, librese la comunicacion prevista en el articulo 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.

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.