Gujarat High Court High Court

Gujarat vs Assistant on 15 November, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Gujarat vs Assistant on 15 November, 2011
Author: V. M. Jhaveri,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

LPA/1438/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1438 of 2011
 

In


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10216 of 2011
 

With


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 11667 of 2011
 

In


 

LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1438 of 2011
 

 
=========================================================


 

GUJARAT
ENERGY TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD. - Appellant(s)
 

Versus
 

ASSISTANT
PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance : 
MS
LILU K BHAYA for
Appellant(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
		
	

 

Date
: 15/11/2011 

 

ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)

1. This
Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and
order dated 08.08.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special
Civil Application No.10216/2011.

2.
Heard Ms. L.K. Bhaya learned counsel for the appellant. She
submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in appreciating the
fact that the appellant has been granted exemption by the State
Labour Department vide its Notification dated 21.12.1964. She also
submitted that the written arguments submitted by the appellant were
not considered by the authority and that when the reply was filed on
14.07.2011, straight-away the matter was fixed for final judgment,
without granting any opportunity to the appellant. She further
submitted that the order passed by the authority is a non-speaking
order as no reasons were assigned.

3. This
appeal has been preferred against an order passed by the learned
Single Judge wherein, the order under challenge was passed by the
competent authority under The Employees’ Provident Fund and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

4. In
our opinion, the petition before the learned Single Judge was under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India and in view of the decision
rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of The
Bhagyodaya Co-operative Bank Limited v. Natvarlal Patel and others
,
2011 (2) G.L.H. 147, a Letters Patent Appeal against the
order of the learned Single Judge would not be maintainable.

5. In
view of the above, this appeal is not entertained on the ground on
maintainability alone. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Consequently,
the civil application also stands rejected.

[V.M. SAHAI, J.]

[K. S. JHAVERI, J.]

Pravin/*

   

Top