Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/14558/2011 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14558 of 2011
=========================================================
RAMESHCHANDRA
LALJIBHAI PATEL & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DY.SECRETARY
NARMADA WATER RESOURCES & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
MJ MEHTA for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 28/09/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. The
present petition is filed by two petitioners claiming the following
relief:
“…7(B). Your
Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the
nature of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ/s, order/s
and/or direction/s and be pleased to issue fresh directions by
directing the respondents to re-engage the petitioners in service, as
persons who are junior to the petitioners are still continued in
service, in view of the order dated 15.05.2008 passed by this Hon’ble
Court in Special Civil Application No.6111 of 2008 and 6112 of
2008…”
1.1 The
order dated 15/05/2008 which is made the basis of this petition is
produced as Annexure – G (page No.69). A plain reading of the
order makes it clear, which reads as under:
‘3. In
view of the directions issued by Labour Court, Surat (at this
juncture learned Advocate for the petitioner states that ‘Surat’ is
wrongly mentioned in place of ‘Rajkot’) in Reference No.6 of 1994 /
Reference No.7 of 1994 (New No.52 of 2007 and No.56 of 2007), where,
Labour Court has passed an award on 30th
January 2008 while rejecting
the relief of reinstatement and partly allowed the reference with a
direction to respondent that in future ,
if, the work, which was performed by petitioner, is available or
arise, then, respondent shall have to issue before advertisement near
the residence of petitioner and according to requirement of the work,
on the basis of seniority, they should have to be provided work if
the work is available.
This Court has passed an order on 11th
April 2008 which is quoted as under:(emphasis
supplied).
“1. Heard
learned advocate Mr. H.S. Mulia appearing on behalf of petitioners.
2. Issue
notice to respondents returnable on 7th May 2008.
3. Meanwhile,
it is directed to respondents to consider the case of both the
petitioners whose services were terminated earlier which is found to
be illegal by Labour Court for re-engagement in the establishment, if
any junior employee is continue in service, on or before returnable
date.
4. It
is further directed to respondents that if any vacancy is available
with the respondents, then, respondent will consider the case of
petitioners for re-engagement in the establishment.
5. It
is further directed to respondents not to engage any new employee
against the vacant posts.
6. Direct
service is permitted.”
4. In
light of the directions issued by this Court on 11th April
2008, it is directed to respondent that if, any vacancy is available
with the respondent and whenever the work is available and whatever
the nature of the work with respondents, then, respondents shall have
to consider the case of petitioner for re-engagement in establishment
and meanwhile, it is directed to respondent not to engage any new
employee or fresh hand against the vacancy/work till the petitioners
are provided the work by respondent as per directions issued by
Labour Court, Rajkot.
5. In
view of above observations and directions, rule is made absolute to
that extent with no order as to costs”.
(emphasis
supplied)
2. This
order is now made to be the basis for claiming the relief. The Court
is of the considered opinion that right from the beginning the
petitioners have been presenting their case before the learned Judge
of the Labour as well as before this Court ‘halfheartedly’. This is
observed on the basis that the learned Advocate for the petitioners
states that their case before the learned Judge of the Labour Court
was that while retaining the juniors in service, the services of the
petitioners were terminated. Now, if that was so, there was no
question of allowing the reference in terms as stated by the learned
Advocate for the petitioners. Thereafter, the aforesaid petitions
were filed before this Court being SCA No.6111 and 6112 of 2008
wherein order was passed on 11/04/2008, which is quoted in judgment
and order dated 15/05/2008. In order dated 11/04/2008 certain
directions were issued to the respondents and subsequently those
petitions are allowed by making Rule absolute by judgment and order
dated 15/05/2008. The direction which is issued on 11/04/2008 which
is subsequently made part of the judgment and order dated 15/05/2008
is only on the ground that,’…if, any vacancy
is available with the respondent and whenever the work is available
and whatever the nature of the work with respondents, then,
respondents shall have to consider the
case of petitioner for re-engagement in establishment and meanwhile,
it is directed to respondent not to engage any new employee or fresh
hand against the vacancy/work till the petitioners are provided the
work by respondent as per directions issued by Labour Court,
Rajkot…”
3. In light of the aforesaid
discussion and the fact that right from the beginning petitioners
have pleaded their case ‘halfheartedly’ and have felt satisfied /
contended with the aforesaid direction, no orders can be passed in
this petition. This petition is in the nature of ‘execution petition’
for the order / direction issued by this Court on 11/04/2008 and
reiterated in the judgment and order dated 15/05/2008 and the Court
refuses to pass any order for implementation of the said directions
after expiry of more than ‘three years’.
3.1 In the result, the petition
stands dismissed. But for the fact that petition is filed by the
‘workmen’, the Court would have dismissed this petition imposing
exemplary cost, however on a request made by learned Advocate
Mr.Mehta for the petitioners taking a lenient view in the matter, the
cost is not imposed.
(RAVI
R TRIPATHI, J.)
sompura
Top