Posted On by &filed under Gujarat High Court, High Court.


Gujarat High Court
Banaskantha vs Palanpur on 12 October, 2011
Author: Ravi R.Tripathi,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/3427/2011	 3/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3427 of 2011
 

 


 

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

 

BANASKANTHA
SAFAI KAMDAR SANGH THROUGH SECRETARY - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

PALANPUR
MUNICIPALITY THROUGH CHIEF OFFICER & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
BHUSHAN B OZA for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MR MEHUL H RATHOD for Respondent(s) : 1, 
NOTICE
SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 12/10/2011 

 

ORAL
ORDER

Heard
learned advocate Mr.Bhushan B. Oza for the petitioner-Banaskantha
Safai Kamdar Sangh. Prayer made in this petition is,

“11B Your
Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the
nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directiion
directing the respondent- Municipality to respect and implement the
2(P) Agreement dated 5.1.2001 by by giving the compassionate
appointment to the 4 heirs of the deceased- sweepers viz. (1)
Savitaben Jagdishbhai, (2) Jayantibhai Hirabhai, (3) Anilbhai
Maganbhai and (4) Vimlaben Jagdishbhai.”

2. Learned
advocate Mr.Mehul H. Rathod appearing for respondent no.1-Palanpur
Municipality states that the Municipality does not have any intention
to defy or not to implement the settlement under section 2(p) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

3. Besides
that the learned advocate for respondent no.1-Municipality states
that the petitioners are either not heirs or not eligible to get
appointment under clause (12) of the settlement under section 2(p) of
the Industrial Disputes Act.

4. On
this statement being made the question involved in this petition
becomes a disputed question of facts. Therefore, this Court cannot
go into the same under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. At
the request of learned advocate Mr.Bushan Oza for the petitioner it
is clarified that non entertainment of this petition will not
prejudice the right of the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy
available to them in accordance with law. With these observations
the petition is disposed of. Notice is discharged.

In
the event the petitioner has already approached or approaching the
authorities hereafter, it is expected that the authorities will give
due priority to such applications filed by the present petitioner and
decide the same at the earliest so as to see that the petitioners do
not get frustrated.

(RAVI
R. TRIPATHI, J.)

karim

   

Top


Leave a Reply

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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

105 queries in 0.167 seconds.