Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/861/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 861 of 2008
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12703 of 2001
With
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 862 of 2008
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12704 of 2001
With
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 863 of 2008
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12700 of 2001
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 9938 of 2008
In
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 861 of 2008
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 9939 of 2008
In
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 862 of 2008
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 9940 of 2008
In
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 863 of 2008
==========================================
CHIEF
OFFICER
Versus
SULEMAN
HASANBHAI SHIDA
==========================================
Appearance
:
MR DEEPAK P
SANCHELA for the Appellant
RULE SERVED for
Respondent(s) : 1,
==========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
Date
: 09/09/2008
COMMON
ORAL ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H. WAGHELA, J.)
1. The
present appellant, an Institution of local self Government, has
invoked Clause 15 of the Letters Patent for challenging the
common judgment dated 2.4.2003 of the learned Single Judge,
whereby the petitions of the appellant were dismissed after
elaborately dealing with the contentions raised on behalf of the
appellant. It is noted in the impugned judgment that the
petitioner- Municipality had not produced any evidence, either
documentary or oral, giving details as to for how many days,
workman concerned had worked during his period of service.
There was evidence before the Labour Court to show that each
workman concerned had continuously worked for more than one
year and their services were admittedly terminated orally and
without following any procedure prescribed under the provisions of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was argued before the
learned Single Judge by learned counsel for the appellant that
there was mere technical breach of the provisions of Section 25F
of the Industrial Disputes Act and the appellant, being a
statutory and public body, should not be made to suffer
financial burden by way of idle wages in the form of back wages.
It was admitted that there was some lapse on the part of the
appellant Municipality in not leading proper evidence. In those
facts, learned Single Judge did not find any jurisdictional
error or infirmity in the impugned award of the Labour Court as,
obviously, the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the Court under
Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution could not be exercised in
favour of the appellant.
2. Learned
counsel Mr. Sanchela, appearing for the appellant, submitted that
the workmen concerned had, after the impugned award made in the year
1999, filed recovery applications and, now, the appellant was
required to pay huge sums of back wages, which it was not in a
financial position to pay and, therefore, the appellant was
constrained to prefer the present appeals.
3. We
have to take serious note of ironical situation in which the
appellant did not care to comply with the mandatory provisions of
law while terminating the services of the workmen concerned and
then did not care to present its case properly before the
Labour Court, but has continued the litigation for almost a
decade, which could not be carried on without spending public
money at the disposal of the appellant and, now, the litigation is
sought to be carried further in the same way without any valid
ground worth the name, in the name of not having sufficient
funds and for saving public money. We can only look down upon
such litigation because it is at the cost of not only the tax
payers of the town concerned but at the cost of the public time of
the Court which could be devoted to other genuine litigants who
might be waiting for decades for redressal of their genuine
grievances. Under the circumstances, we summarily dismiss these
appeals with cost quantified at Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand
Five hundred) in each appeal, which shall be paid by the
appellant to the Gujarat State Legal Service Authority, Ahmedabad,
within 15 days.
ORDER
IN THE CIVIL APPLICATIONS:
In
view of the order passed in the Letters Patent Appeals, the civil
applications do not survive and accordingly disposed.
(BHAGWATI
PRASAD, J.) (D.H. WAGHELA, J.)
omkar
Top