Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/12990/2010 1/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY No. 12990 of 2010
With
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 993 of 2008
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.
3667 of 2008
=========================================================
MANGROL
MUNICIPALITY - Petitioner(s)
Versus
CHANDRAKANT
MAHAVIRDAS AGRAWAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SIRAJ R GORI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.D. SHAH
Date
: 26/10/2010
ORAL ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE)
This
is an application for condonation of delay of 46 days caused in
filing the Letters Patent Appeal challenging the order dated
26.2.2008 passed in Special Civil Application No.3667 of 2008
dismissing the petition.
2. Heard
learned advocate Mr Gori on delay as well as to some extent on
merits. The track record of the matter is that the appeal was filed
in the year 2008. The same came to be dismissed for non-removal of
office objections. Thereafter Misc. Civil Application No.2859 of
2010 was preferred which was allowed by this Court. Now, there is an
application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal.
3.
The appellant is a Municipality, which terminated the services of
the respondent orally. The respondent had earlier made an application
for regularising his services, which was pending at the time when the
termination was effected. The respondent, therefore, moved the Labour
Court with a Reference and the Labour Court by award dated 3.2.2007
directed reinstatement as well as payment of 25% of backwages.
Aggrieved thereby, Special Civil Application No.3667 of 2008 was
preferred which came to be dismissed by order dated 26.2.2008 and
hence, this appeal.
4. Heard
learned advocate Mr Gori, who is not able to justify the action of
terminating the services of the respondent orally while the
application for regularisation was pending. This has weighed with
both the Courts below. We also find that during pendency of the
petition and this Letters Patent Appeal, there has not been any stay
of the order of the Labour Court. It is an undisputed fact that
reinstatement is not effected to nor are the backwages paid as per
the order. The representation/ application has also not been
decided upon.
5. In
light of the above factual scenario, we are of the view that even on
merits the applicant-appellant has no case and condoning the delay
would only extend the lifeline of the litigation where at the end the
appeal would be dismissed.
6. In
light of the above discussion, we, having found no merits in the
appeal and no merits in the cause for delay, do not condone the delay
and dismiss the application along with Letters Patent Appeal (Stamp)
No.993 of 2008.
(A.L.
DAVE, J.)
(M.D.
SHAH, J.)
zgs/-
Top