Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/14376/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14376 of 2011
=========================================================
AARTHIK
COMMERCIALS PVT.LTD. C/O.RIL(TEXTILE DIVISION) - Petitioner(s)
Versus
RAMESHKUMAR
D PANDYA & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
Mr.K.S.
NAVAVATI FOR MESSRS NANAVATI ASSOCIATES
for
the petitioner.
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 29/09/2011
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned senior advocate Mr.K.S. Nanavati appearing for M/s Nanavati
Associates for the petitioner. The learned senior advocate for the
petitioner invited the attention of the Court to para 13 of the award
dated 08.02.2011 in Reference (LCB) No.6 of 2008, wherein the learned
Judge of the Labour Court No.1, Bharuch observed that, ‘on perusal of
the contract produced on the record, which is between opponents no.1
and 2, the purpose seems to be that the workman is not included in
the list of workmen of the main company. In such circumstances, the
contract appears to be ‘paper arrangement’. But then the contract
does not appear to be bogus and vague and therefore, issue no.3 is
answered in affirmative in part.’
The
learned senior advocate for the petitioner invited attention of the
Court to para 17 of the award, wherein after discussing a decision of
the Bombay High Court in the matter of General Manager (P&A),
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. General Secretary,
General Employees’ Association, reported in 2010 LLR 957, the
learned Judge has observed that, “in the present case the
control and supervision is of opponent no.1 and taking into
consideration the contract which is produced, it appears to be ‘paper
arrangement’. But the same does not appear to be sham and bogus, and
therefore, the judgement in question is partly helpful to the
applicant.”
The
learned senior advocate for the petitioner submitted that the
aforesaid observations/ findings recorded by the learned Judge of the
Labour Court are self contradictory. The learned senior advocate for
the petitioner submitted that therefore, the matter requires
consideration.
2. RULE.
NOTICE as to interim relief returnable on 14th
October 2011. Ad interim relief in terms of para 8(B). Direct
service is permitted.
(RAVI
R. TRIPATHI, J.)
karim
Top