Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/308/2008 5/ 5 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 308 of 2008
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
RAMNIVAS
S SHARMA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DISTRICT
COLLECTOR & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SUBRAMANIAM IYER for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) :
1,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, 3,
NOTICE UNSERVED for
Respondent(s) : 2,
NANAVATI ASSOCIATES for Respondent(s) :
3,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 26/08/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. This
petition is filed with a prayer that the respondent be directed to
execute the recovery certificate issued by the Labour Court. The
respondent No.1 – Collector has filed affidavit giving the detail of
action taken by his office for executing recovery certificate. It is
disclosed from the affidavit that the respondent No.3 Company has
been closed down and notice issued by the office of the respondent
No.1 – Collector has been returned. It is also further disclosed in
the affidavit that at the site where the respondent No.3 Company’s
unit was functioning, is now under the ownership of one “Bhumi
Organizer” and certain constructions come up on those lands in
name of “Pavitra Township” and “Ambika Niketan”,
residential societies. Obviously for want of any other details
regarding any assets of the Company, if at all there are any, the
respondent No.1 may not be able to execute the recovery certificate.
2. Further
it does not appear to be in dispute now that the respondent No.3
Company has closed down the factory and its operation. It is also
submitted by Mr. K.D. Gandhi, learned advocate for the respondent
No.3 that the recovery certificates, which are subject matter of the
petition, have been issued pursuant to an ex parte award and the
respondent No.3 – Company has also filed Misc. Applications under
Rule 26-A praying that the ex parte order may be set aside and
reference proceedings may be restored. It is also submitted that the
said Misc. Applications are pending and being considered by the
Labour Court.
3. As
a cumulative effect that the aforesaid events and development,
particularly, in view of the affidavit of the respondent No.1 and
fact that the Misc. Applications of respondent No.3 Company are
receiving attention of the Labour Court and further proceedings of
recovery certificates obviously would be subject to the order, which
may be passed by the Labour Court in the recovery certificates.
Pendency and continuation of the present petition at this stage,
therefore, does not appear to be of any fruitful purpose. Hence, the
petition is disposed of at this stage.
4. Ms.
Iyer, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that liberty to
the petitioner to revive the petition, may be reserved in the event
the restoration application is rejected or the respondent No.3
Company fails to get any order in connection with or against
recovery certificates. Hence, it would be open for the petitioner to
approach this Court for the very same relief for which the present
petition has been preferred, if the Misc. Applications are not
entertained by the Labour Court or any orders staying execution of
the recovery certificates are not passed by the Labour Court.
5. Mr.
Gandhi, learned advocate submitted that apart from subject recovery
certificates, in various other matters, ex parte award came to be
passed by the Labour Court and subsequently, recovery certificates on
the basis of such ex parte award have been issued for which the
respondent No.3 Company has filed Misc. Applications and in some of
such Misc. Applications, order requiring the respondent No.3 Company
to pay the amount of Rs.1 Lac is passed. Mr. Gandhi, learned advocate
has placed copy of the said order dated 22.8.2008 on record to
demonstrate that the Misc. Applications filed by the Company against
the ex parte award are receiving attention of the Labour Court and
appropriate orders are being passed.
6. With
the aforesaid clarification and liberty to the petitioner, this
petition is disposed of at this stage.
(K.M.THAKER,
J.)
ynvyas
Top