Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/42/2001 3/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 42 of 2001
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 43 of 2001
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 44 of 2001
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
PARESH
DHIRAJLAL RAVAL - Petitioner(s)
Versus
AGRICULTURE
PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MB PARIKH for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
M/S THAKKAR ASSOC. for Respondent(s) : 1,
MS
MINI NAIR AGP for Respondent(s) : 2,
MR DIPEN A DESAI for
Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
Date
: 27/12/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. The
short facts are that the petitioners were appointed as clerks on
temporary basis with the respondent No.1-APMC-Jamkhambhalia. It
appears that thereafter the services of the petitioners were
terminated. However, in Special Civil Application No.42 of 2001 as
well as in Special Civil Application No.44 of 2001, the concerned
petitioners preferred a writ petition before this Court challenging
the said decision whereas, the petitioners of Special Civil
Application No.43 of 2001 raised dispute under the Industrial Dispute
Act which ultimately came to be referred to the labour court. In the
petitions preferred by the aforesaid two petitioners, being Special
Civil Application No.7109 of 1992 and 360 of 1993, when it came for
hearing before this Court on 09.02.2001, a statement was made by the
learned counsel for the petitioners that the services of the
petitioners have been made permanent with effect from 01.05.1999 and
therefore, the petitions came to be disposed of as having become
infructuous. However, in respect of the petitioner
of Special Civil Application No.43 of 2001, it appears that the
labour court passed the award in the Reference Case No.1450 of 1990
whereby, he was ordered to be reinstated with 30% back wages to his
original post. It appears that thereafter, once again the Market
Committee directed to place the concerned petitioners to their
original position of fixed pay-scale without giving any opportunity
of hearing to the petitioners. The petitioners, under these
circumstances, have preferred the present petitions.
2. The
pertinent aspect is that the Market Committee has not filed any reply
whatsoever. However, Mr.Desai, learned counsel appearing for the
Marked Committee, contended that as the District Registrar had so
directed, the Market Committee has passed the impugned order which is
challenged in the present petition but the directions of the District
Registrar are not placed on record.
3. It
is undisputed position that the opportunity of hearing has not been
given to any of the petitioners by the Market Committee before
passing the impugned order. The another relevant aspect is that the
petitioners have been working as daily wagers and thereafter their
services were made permanent since 1999 and therefore, even if any
adverse action is to be taken, it would be required for the Market
Committee to give the opportunity of hearing to the petitioners then
to pass the order. In order to see that the Market Committee does not
shirk its responsibility as assigned under the law, it would be just
and proper if such action of the Market Committee is also supervised
by the District Registrar.
4. In
view of the aforesaid, the impugned order passed by the Market
Committee is quashed and set aside with further direction that the
Market Committee shall give the opportunity of hearing and shall pass
a fresh order after getting the approval of the District Registrar
for such purpose. It is observed that in the event the approval is
not granted or the order is against the petitioners, the petitioners
shall be at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law and
at that stage, the rights and contentions of both sides shall remain
open.
5. The
petitions are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made
absolute. No order as to costs.
(JAYANT
PATEL, J.)
Hitesh
Top