Ahmedabad vs Mukesh on 21 September, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Ahmedabad vs Mukesh on 21 September, 2011
Author: V. M. Jhaveri,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

LPA/1238/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1238 of 2011
 

In


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7112 of 2011
 

With


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 8822 of 2011
 

In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1238 of 2011
 

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


 

AHMEDABAD
DISTRICT COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED & 1 -
Appellant(s)
 

Versus
 

MUKESH
R PATEL - Respondent(s)
 

=================================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
CHIRAG B PATEL for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2. 
None for Respondent(s) :
1, 
================================================= 

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 21/09/2011 

 

ORAL
ORDER

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

This
Letters Patent Appeal,
filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by
the appellants – original petitioners, challenges the judgment
and order dated 18th
July 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil
Application No.7112 of 2011 vide which the learned Single Judge
rejected the writ petition filed by the petitioners.

Heard
Mr Chirag Patel, learned counsel for the appellants. He has urged
that ‘Doctor’ is not included within the definition of a workman
under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore the Labour
Court has no jurisdiction in the matter. He further submitted the
Labour Court has erred in passing the award.

According
to the learned counsel for the appellants, he has raised this
contention before the learned Single Judge, but the said point was
not dealt with by the learned Single Judge. In this regard, he
wants to file a review application before the learned Single Judge
and wants to withdraw the appeal. Permission is granted.

Appeal
is dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to the learned counsel for
the appellants to file a review application before the learned Single
Judge.

In
view of the disposal of the main appeal, no order is required to be
passed on the Civil Application for stay and the same stands disposed
of accordingly.

(V.M.

Sahai, J.)

(K.S.Jhaveri,
J.)

*mohd

   

Top

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *