Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9162/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9162 of 2011
=====================================
SHETH
ANANDJI KALYANJI & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
RAMESHCHANDRA
RAMKISHOR PANDEY - Respondent(s)
=====================================
Appearance
:
MR JOSHI, SR ADVOCATE with MR
SACHIN D VASAVADA for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.
NOTICE SERVED for
Respondent(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
SHASHIKANT S GADE for Respondent(s) :
1,
=====================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 10/11/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1.0 Heard
learned senior advocate Mr. Joshi with Mr. Sachin D. Vasavada for the
petitioners.
1.1 Heard
Shri Shantaram Gangaram Chaudhary, the Power of Attorney of the
respondent.
2.0 The
learned senior advocate for the petitioners stated that the
petitioner is ready and willing to allow the respondent to resume the
duties on same terms and conditions on which he was working when his
services came to an end on expiry of contract (as is the say of the
petitioner).
2.1 The
Power of Attorney of the respondent has objection to the same and he
stated that the petitioner be directed to reinstate him as a
permanent employee at the wages payable to a regularly appointed
Watchman. The Power of Attorney invited attention of the Court to
different documents in support of the contention that there was no
validly executed contract between the parties. In this regard, he
also invited attention of the Court to the Office Orders, to mention
the few, exhs. 41, 40, 83, 85, 44, 45, 46 and other similar
documents. The Power of Attorney also argued that when the matter
was referred to by the Conciliation Officer to the Labour Court,
holding the petitioner to be an ‘Industry’, the said order was not
challenged by the petitioner. Hence, it is not open for the
petitioner to contend that the petitioner is not an ‘Industry’.
3.0 The
matter is already admitted by order dated 29th September
2011. Today the matter is before the Court for confirmation of
ad-interim relief. The ad-interim relief was granted in terms of Para
10(d). Taking into consideration the fact that the Power of Attorney
has objection against reporting for duty, the ad-interim relief
granted is ordered to be continued till final disposal of the matter.
3.1 Taking
into consideration the fact that the respondent is out of job and not
willing to report for duty, it is deemed proper that the matter be
ordered to be listed for final hearing on
12th
December 2011.
[
Ravi R. Tripathi, J. ]
hiren
Top