Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/8256/2009 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8256 of 2009
=========================================================
GNFC
OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION THRO. C K BHAYANI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS CO LTD - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
PARTY-IN-PERSON
for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
NANAVATI ASSOCIATES for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 18/02/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1.
Present petition is preferred seeking below mentioned relief/s:-
“(A)
Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari, mandamus
or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set
aside the impugned order dated 18.4.2009 passed by the Industrial
Tribunal, Baroda in Reference (IT) No. 125 of 2004, passing order to
produce documents by the Union-annexed as Annexure-A hereto; and
(B)
Your Lordships may be pleased to stay implementation or execution of
the impugned order dated 18.4.2009 passed by the Industrial Tribunal,
pending hearing and disposal of the petition; and
(C)
Your Lordships may be pleased to issue ex-parte ad-interim
injunction, in terms of the prayer 12(B) above; and
(D)
Your Lordships may be pleased to pass order for expeditious disposal
of the matter of reference, pending for very long time (14 years), in
time bound period of shortest duration; and
(E)
Your Lordships may be pleased to pass order to initiate Contempt of
the court proceedings against the Company Representatives; and
(F)
Grant such other and further reliefs as deemed proper and pass order
as deemed proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case;
and
(G)
Cost may kindly be granted to the Union.”
2.
The petitioner, who appears as party-in-person, has made reference to
the relief prayed for in the petition and in light of that the
impugned direction given by the learned Industrial Tribunal by virtue
of paragraph 11 in the order dated 18.4.2009 page 31 has been
examined.
3.
The petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the direction given by the
learned Tribunal for production of documents as it comes out from the
perusal of paragraph 11 of the impugned order dated 11.4.2009. Ex
facie order is interlocutory. This Court has made it clear to the
petitioner that the Court is not inclined to entertain the petition
and/or to interfere with the order which is passed at interlocutory
stage and it would be open to the petitioner to take his own
decision, at his risk and cost, either to comply with the order or
not to comply with the order and invite consequences of not complying
the direction in the order (viz. adverse inference which may be drawn
by the Tribunal).
As
regards the relief prayed for in paragraph 12(E) it is made clear to
the petitioner that appropriate proceedings e.g. proceedings under
the provision of ‘Contempt of Court Act’ may be required to be taken
out for seeking the type of relief which is prayed for in para 12 (E)
however, it is for the petitioner to decide and select the course of
action and appropriate forum to seek the said relief. It is also made
clear to the petitioner that in present proceedings i.e. in this
petition (where the order dated 18.4.2009 is sought to be challenged)
it would not be feasible to grant relief prayed for in para 12(E)
i.e. of initiating Contempt of Court proceedings against company
representatives, particularly in absence of any reference by the
learned Industrial Tribunal for intimating such proceedings when no
one has filed any application under Contempt of Court Act.
4.
As regards the relief prayed for in paragraph 12(D) also it is made
clear to the petitioner that this Court may make appropriate
observation for expeditious hearing and decision in the reference so
that early conclusion of the proceedings can be ensured.
5. Since
the petitioner appears as party-in-person, this Court has also
suggested that Legal Aid, by way of appointing an advocate who appear
and argue on behalf of the petitioner, if he desires, may be made
available.
6. At
this stage the petitioner has requested for time to take decision as
regards the option of accepting Legal Aid or any assistance of
advocate and also in light of the view expressed by the Court as
regards prayer made in paragraph 12(D).
7. The
request is opposed by Mr. Gandhi, learned advocate for the respondent
on the ground that during the previous hearing also the proceedings
were adjourned on the same ground and for the same purpose.
8.
However, considering the fact that the petitioner appears as
party-in-person some indulgence is justified and is granted.
9.
The request is accepted. The hearing of the present petition is
adjourned to 7.3.2011.
10.
At this stage the petitioner has requested that since the proceedings
before the learned Tribunal are scheduled to take place on 11.3.2011
any date after the said date of hearing before the learned Tribunal
i.e. 11.3.2011 may be fixed for further hearing.
11. Considering
the said request the hearing of the present petition is adjourned to
14.3.2011.
12.
The petitioner has tendered additional affidavit dated 18.2.2011
which is taken on record.
13.
At this stage the petitioner has made reference to paragraph 12(F)
and submitted that he has prayed for the said relief also. The said
paragraph 12(F) reads thus:-
“(F)
Grant such other and further reliefs as deemed proper and pass order
as deemed proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case”
(K.M.THAKER,J.)
Suresh*
Top