Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/14536/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14536 of 2010
=========================================================
TUSHARBHAI
BIPINCHANDRA GOR, HEIR OF BIPINCHANDRA CHANDULAL - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DAKOR
TEMPLE COMMITTEE - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
NIKHIL D JOSHI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
Date
: 24/11/2010
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner being a
legal heir and representative of late Shri Bipinchandra Chandulal
has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the learned
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Nadiad on 16.12.2009 below an
application Ex.21 in Reference (LCN) Case No.505 of 1989 whereby the
petitioner’s challenge to legality and validity of the departmental
inquiry was turned down and application Ex.21 was rejected.
Heard Mr.Nikhil D. Joshi,
learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and perused the order
passed by the learned Labour Judge and also the documents attached
alongwith the petition. The reference is of 1989 which is still
pending and the application Ex.21 is decided by the learned Labour
Judge on 16.12.2009. Even by this time the reference itself could
have been disposed off. While deciding the application Ex.21 the
learned Judge has observed that the original applicant i.e.
delinquent has already expired and 20 years have already been
passed. The Manager who has given charge-sheet and the person who
has conducted departmental inquiry have also expired. The learned
Judge has further observed that the applicant has failed to prove
that the departmental inquiry conducted was improper or illegal.
Except by making allegations no further evidence was led by the
petitioner.
Since this being an
interim order and main reference is still pending the Court has not
gone into the merits of the matter. The Court is of the view that
instead of raising this issue the petitioner should have proceeded
with the reference and hence without disturbing the impugned order
passed by the Labour Court, the Court directs the Labour Court to
proceed with the main reference and decide it as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within the period of 12 months from the date of
receipt of writ or from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this order, whichever is earlier. The Court has not entertained this
petition at this stage would not mean that the reference itself
stands concluded against the petitioner. While deciding the main
reference the learned Labour Judge should take into consideration
and decide all the issues raised before him in accordance with law
and irrespective of the findings recorded by him in his interim
order.
With these clarification
and observation this petition is accordingly disposed off.
Sd/-
(K. A. PUJ, J.)
kks
Top