Gujarat High Court High Court

Gujarat vs Makwana on 25 January, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Gujarat vs Makwana on 25 January, 2011
Author: Jayant Patel,&Nbsp;Honourable J.C.Upadhyaya,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

LPA/3084/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 3084 of 2010
 

In


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11316 of 2009
 

 
 
=========================================================

 

GUJARAT
AMBUJA COTSPIN - Appellant(s)
 

Versus
 

MAKWANA
KULDIPBHAI DEVAJIBHAI - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
PRABHAKAR UPADYAY for
Appellant(s) : 1, 
MR MINESH C DAVE for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
		
	

 

Date
: 25/01/2011 

 

ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)

The
present appeal arises against the order dated 9.7.2010 passed by
learned single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application
No.2420 of 2009 whereby the interim stay has been granted against
the backwages, but has not been granted against the reinstatement
with continuity in service.

We
have heard Mr.Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr.Dave for the respondent.

As
such, it is an interim order passed by the learned single Judge and
we find that in view of the reasons recorded by the learned single
Judge at paragraphs 6 and 7 read with the reasonings recorded by the
Industrial Tribunal in the appeal, it cannot be said that the
discretion exercised by learned single Judge is perverse or
erroneous, which may call for interference in the present appeal.
However, learned counsel appearing for the appellant lastly
contended that let the reinstatement be clarified without prejudice
to the rights and contentions of the original petitioner –
appellant herein in the main Special Civil Application and subject
to final order in the main Special Civil Application.

We
find that such clarification would hardly be required to be made
since interim orders are always without prejudice to the rights and
contentions of the parties to be agitated at the final disposal of
the petition. Hence, the appeal is meritless and, therefore,
dismissed.

(JAYANT PATEL,
J.)

(J.C.UPADHYAYA,
J.)

(binoy)

   

Top