Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/308220/2008 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3082 of 2008
=========================================================
C
S HOTELS PVT LTD (HOTEL KARNAVATI) & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
SHRIMALI
BHARATKUMAR BALDEVBHAI & 6 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SACHIN D VASAVADA for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.
MR TR MISHRA for Respondent(s) : 1 -
5.
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 6,
MS VS PATHAK AGP
for Respondent(s) :
7,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 17/09/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. Heard
learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel Mr.Vasavada for the
petitioners submitted that the certificate and attachment notices
have not been annexed to this petition but the question is with
regard to mis-joinder and non-joinder of the parties in the original
proceedings, as the Directors have been joined with their names.
2. Mr.Vasavada
submitted that this very attachment notice issued upon the
certificate which was sought to be implemented and the petitions were
filed by these very respondents being Special Civil Application
No.22373 of 2007 with Special Civil Application No.22375 of 2007 to
Special Civil Application No.22379 of 2007 with Special Civil
Application No.22397 of 2007 to Special Civil Application No.22404 of
2007 and, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court
(Coram: S.R.BRAHMBHATT,J.) has passed judgment and order dated
29.10.2007. At that time, the present petition was not argued and
brought on record. However, it remains
to be noted that
these very certificates are the subject matter of the petitions
mentioned hereinabove and that this Court has issued directions to
the Collector and the other respondents to comply with the same.
Learned counsel Mr.Vasavada had submitted that order dated 29.10.2007
has not been the subject matter of
challenge in any proceedings.
3. As
there is an order passed by this Court already directing the
concerned authorities i.e. Collector and other respondents to
implement the certificates and as this order was passed after hearing
Mr.Vasavada, who was representing the present petitioners and
therefore, now, it is not permitted to the petitioners to argue or
canvass the points with regard to non-joinder etc. suffice it to say
that this petition also deserves to be disposed of as having no
merits. However, before passing the judgment, this Court would like
to observe that the petitioners have made following prayers.
(b) Your
Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Prohibition and/or a writ
in nature of prohibition under Article 226 of Constitution of India,
restraining the Respondent no.2 not to take any coercive action to
recover the amount as per the Recovery Certificates and as per the
Attachment Notices.
(c) To
please further hold that the action of the Labour Court in passing
the ex-parte awards and orders, which are annexed as Annexure-B Colly
and Annexure C, against the Managing Director and the Director of the
Company and not against the Employer Company, is illegal, arbitrary,
violative of principles of natural justice and therefore violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(d) To
please quash and set aside the ex-parte awards and orders passed by
the Labour Court, Ahmedabad and be further pleased to remand the
entire proceedings for adjudication after following the principles of
natural justice and hearing of the present petitioner employer and be
further pleased to direct Respondent no.7 not to initiate any
proceedings, in the interest of justice, against the present
petitioners;
(e) Pending
hearing and final disposal of the present petition, the operation and
execution of ex-parte awards which are annexed as Annexure B ‘colly’
and Annexure C may kindly be stayed by this Hon’ble High Court and
further be directed the Respondent no.7 not to initiate recovery
proceedings against the present petitioners.
(f) Ex
parte interim relief as prayed for in para 10(e) may be granted.
This
itself goes to show that the petition deserves to be rejected
otherwise also on account of vagueness and non production of the very
material which is supposed to be under challenge. At the same time,
the attachment notices which have not been the subject matter of the
challenge and have not been produced on record and the facts remain
to be noted that in respect of these very notices, after hearing
learned counsel Mr.Vasavada on behalf of the present petitioner, this
Court negatived the submissions and, therefore, on this count also,
this petition deserves to be dismissed. In view of the aforesaid
discussion and in view of the fact that on earlier occasion, the
entire group of petitions has been disposed of taking a special note
of conduct on the part of the employer, the petitioner in this
litigation and, therefore, on that count also the petition deserves
to be dismissed and it is dismissed with cost.
4. Learned
counsel Mr.Mishra submits that the amount deposited, while issuing
the notice, be permitted to be disbursed to the workman. Mr.Vasavada
in all fairness does not object this request. Hence, the amount
deposited shall be disbursed to the workman. This amount being
disbursed, shall be brought to the notice of the Collector and the
Collector shall give appropriate set up from the total amount to be
paid. The cost, as deposited, shall be paid to the respondent-workman
in equal proportion.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT,
J.)
Hitesh
Top