IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 1254 of 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
SANJAY OBED (THEN PARTNER OF JAYDEEP PLASTICS)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
1. Special Civil Application No. 1254 of 2005
MR GIRISH M DAS for Petitioner No. 1
.......... for Respondent No. 1-3
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date of Order: 01/02/2005
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner, Sanjay Obed, the then partner of
Jaydeep Plastics is before this Court with the prayer to
quash and set aside the judgement and award dated
16.03.1999 passed by the Labour Court, Anand in Reference
(LCA) No.160 of 1994 and the recovery certificate issued
in Recovery Application No.160 of 2000.
2.Mr.Girish M. Das, learned advocate for the
petitioner submitted that the respondent workman was
serving with the erstwhile Jaydeep Plastics and his
services were terminated from 17.03.1994. Thereafter,
the respondent workman had approached the Conciliation
Officer before whom it was agreed to re-employ the
workman and accordingly the workman was employed and paid
wages. The xerox copies of wage slips showing payment to
the respondent workman are produced at Annexure ‘B’ from
page 12 to 23. The learned advocate for the petitioner
submitted that despite this the workman fraudulently
pursued the matter and got the matter referred to the
Labour Court. As the erstwhile partnership firm did not/
could not defend the proceedings as during pendency of
the same in the year 1998 the unit was closed. The
petitioner did not know about the judgement and award
dated 16.03.1999 and also did not know about filing of
recovery application in which recovery certificate is
issued.
3.The learned advocate further submitted that after
obtaining recovery certificate the respondent workman
approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application
No.10413 of 2004, joining erstwhile partnership firm as
respondent no.3. But subsequently for the reasons best
known to the respondent workman, ‘respondent no.3’ was
deleted. Thereafter, he persuaded this Court to pass the
following order on 24.08.2004:
“Considering the submissions made, it is expected
that the respondents, in particular respondent
no.2, shall expedite process of recovery of the
amount indicated in the recovery certificate at
Annexure ‘A’, unless the award on the basis of
which the said recovery certificate has been
issued or the recovery certificate itself has
been stayed or set aside by the competent court.
It is expected that the said process shall be
completed as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within a period of four months from
today.”
Now the petitioner is served with the notice under
section 152 of the Land Revenue Code on 22.12.2004.
Hence the petitioner has approached this Court.
4.Mr.Das wants time to procure papers of the
Conciliation proceedings and produce before this Court.
At his request the matter is adjourned to 07.02.2005.
(Ravi R. Tripathi, J.)
karim