Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/1359/2011 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1359 of 2011
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4467 of 2011
with
CIVIL
APPLICATION NO.10788 OF 2011
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=================================================
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 ?
=================================================
RAMESHBHAI
PRABHUBHAI MAKWANA
Versus
GUJARAT
WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD
=================================================
Appearance :
MR
KAPIL K ACHARYA for Appellant(s) : 1,
MR HS MUNSHAW for
Respondent(s) : 1,
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 11/10/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI)
By
way of filing this appeal, the appellant has challenged the order
dated 19th April
2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special
Civil Application No.4467 of 2011 vide which the learned Single Judge
rejected the writ petition on the ground that the same is not
maintainable in law as the learned Single Judge had already dismissed
earlier writ petition being Special Civil Application No.7439 of
2010.
2
The case of the appellant – original petitioner is that the
petitioner was appointed by the respondent-Board during the period
between 13th
October 1982 to 01st
July 1990. Thereafter, on 07th
September 2005, he was retrenched by the respondent-Board without
following due procedure under the law. Against the said action, the
petitioner raised a dispute culminated into aforesaid Reference
Cases, which ultimately came to be rejected by the Labour Court.
3 The
petitioner along with other workmen challenged the said judgment and
award of the Labour Court by filing Special Civil Application No.7439
of 2010 before the learned Single Judge, which was rejected vide
order dated 8th July 2010. The petitioner, instead of
filing appeal against the same, preferred Special Civil Application
No.4467 of 2011 before the learned Single Judge again, who rejected
the same on the ground that the successive writ petition is not
maintainable. Hence, the present appeal.
4. Heard
learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
5. It
is pertinent to note that the Labour Court while considering the
evidence on record has categorically observed that the petitioner has
accepted the amount of notice pay, retrenchment compensation as well
as gratuity. Further, the Labour Court has after taking into
consideration the pros and cons of the matter has observed that the
petitioner was part-time employee and no other person after
retrenchment of the petitioner, has been retained by the respondents.
Thus, there is no breach of provisions of Sections 25(F), 25(G) and
25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Having regard to the
contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this
Court is of the opinion that the impugned judgment and award passed
by the Labour Court is just and proper and the learned Single Judge
has rightly rejected the same. No interference is warranted by this
Court in this appeal. The appeal is devoid of any merits. Hence,
the same is dismissed.
Civil
Application No.10788 of 2011 filed under the provisions of Order 41
Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code for bringing additional evidence
on record cannot be granted at this stage and hence the same is also
rejected.
(V.M.
Sahai, J.)
(K.S.Jhaveri,
J.)
*mohd
Top