Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/1191020/2008 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11910 of 2008
=========================================================
CHIEF
OFFICER - Petitioner(s)
Versus
JESABHAI
LAXMANBHAI BAPODARA - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
ASIT B JOSHI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
VIRAL V DAVE for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 18/03/2009
ORAL ORDER
This
petition raises issue as to whether the principle of res-judicata
would be applicable to the proceedings under Section 33-A or not. It
is the case of the petitioner that the workman had earlier filed
application / complaint under Section 33-A of the I.D.Act, 1947,
however, subsequently, the said application was unconditionally
withdrawn. After having unconditionally withdrawn the said
application / complaint, the workman subsequently filed another
application / complaint under Section 33-A for the same dispute and
same relief. It is the case of the petitioner that such an
application / complaint would not be maintainable and would be barred
by principle of res-judicata or
principle analogous to the said principle. Hence, RULE. There
shall be interim relief on condition that the petitioner shall comply
with the provisions under Section 17-B of the I.D.Act, 1947. In view
of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaipur
Jilla Sahkari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. V/s. Ramgopal Sharma & Ors.
reported in (2002) 2
SCC 244 when complaint under
Section 33-A is allowed, the order would imply that the employer is
obliged to reinstate the workman. In present case, however, there is,
in the impugned order dated 31.7.2008, specific direction granting
reinstatement. Hence, provisions under Section 17-B would become
applicable. In the present case, there is a clear direction to
reinstate the respondent. Hence, the petitioner is obliged to comply
with provisions under Section 17-B.
[K.M.Thaker,
J.]
kdc
Top