Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/309/2008 5/ 5 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 309 of 2008
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
KABHAI
G RAVAL - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DISTRICT
COLLECTOR & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SUBRAMANIAM IYER for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) :
1,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE UNSERVED for
Respondent(s) : 2,
NANAVATI ASSOCIATES for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 26/08/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. This
petition is filed with a prayer that the respondent be directed to
execute the recovery certificate issued by the Labour Court. The
respondent No.1 – Collector has filed affidavit giving the details of
actions claimed to have been taken by his office for executing the
recovery certificate. It is further disclosed from the affidavit that
the respondent No.3 Company has been closed down and notice issued
by the office of the respondent No.1 – Collector has been returned.
It is further disclosed in the affidavit that the site, where the
respondent No.3 Company’s unit was functioning, is now under the
ownership of one “Bhumi Organizer” and certain
constructions in name of “Pavitra Township” and “Ambika
Niketan”, have come up on those lands. Obviously for want of any
other details regarding any assets of the Company, if at all there
are any, the respondent No.1 may not be able to execute the recovery
certificate.
2. Further
it does not appear to be in dispute that the respondent No.3 Company
has closed down the factory and its operation. It is also submitted
by Mr. K.D. Gandhi, learned advocate for the respondent No.3 that the
recovery certificates, which are subject matter of the petition, have
been issued pursuant to an ex parte award and the respondent No.3 –
Company has also filed Misc. Applications under Rule 26-A praying
that the ex parte orders may be set aside and reference proceedings
may be restored. It is also submitted that the said Misc.
Applications are pending and being considered by the Labour Court.
3. As
a cumulative effect of the aforesaid events and development,
particularly in view of the affidavit of the respondent No.1 and the
fact that the Misc. Applications of respondent No.3 Company are
receiving attention of the Labour Court, the further proceedings of
recovery certificates obviously would be subject to the order, which
may be passed by the Labour Court in the recovery certificates.
Pendency and continuation of the present petition at this stage,
therefore, does not appear to be of any fruitful purpose. Hence, the
petition is disposed of at this stage, since the further course of
action would depend on the orders which may be passed by the Labour
Court in the Misc. Applications presented before it with prayer for
setting aside ex parte orders.
4. Ms.
Iyer, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that liberty to
the petitioner to revive the petition, may be reserved in the event
the restoration application is rejected or the respondent No.3
Company fails to get any order in connection with or against
recovery certificates. Hence, it would be open for the petitioner to
approach this Court for the very same relief for which the present
petition has been preferred, if the Misc. Applications are not
entertained by the Labour Court or any orders staying execution of
the recovery certificates are not passed by the Labour Court.
5. Mr.
Gandhi, learned advocate submitted that apart from subject recovery
certificates, in various other matters, ex parte orders came to be
passed by the Labour Court and subsequently, recovery certificates on
the basis of such ex parte orders were issued and with regard to such
certificate and ex parte orders, the respondent No.3 Company has
filed various/separate Misc. Applications and in some of such Misc.
Applications, order requiring the respondent No.3 Company to
pay/deposit a sum of Rs.1 Lac is passed. Mr. Gandhi, learned advocate
has placed copy of the said order dated 22.8.2008 on record to
demonstrate that the Misc. Applications filed by the Company against
the ex parte award are receiving attention of the Labour Court and
appropriate orders are being passed.
6. With
the aforesaid clarification and liberty to the petitioner, this
petition is disposed of at this stage.
(K.M.THAKER,
J.)
Top