Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/11002/1995 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11002 of 1995
=========================================================
BIJLI
MAZDOOR PANCHAYAT - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJRAT
ELECTRICITY BOARD & 6 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MRS
SANGEETA N PAHWA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR MD
PANDYA for Respondent(s) : 2,
MR RS SANJANWALA for Respondent(s) :
3,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 4, 6,
RULE NOT RECD BACK
for Respondent(s) : 4, 6,
NOTICE UNSERVED for Respondent(s) :
5,
M/S PATEL ADVOCATES for Respondent(s) :
7,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 21/02/2011
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned Advocate Mrs. Sangeeta N.Pahwa for petitioner Bijali Mazdoor
Panchayat. Learned Advocate Mr. MD Pandya is appearing for
respondent No. 1 and 2. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjanwala is
appearing for respondent NO.3. Though notice is served to
respondents no.4 and 6, no appearance is filed on behalf of said
respondents. Notice has remained unserved for respondent NO.5 and
M/s. Patel Advocates is appearing for for respondent No. 7, Labour
Commissioner. In this petition, petitioner has made prayer in
paragraph 10(A) to 10(E) of petition which are quoted as under:
10
(A) Declaring that Resp. No. 1 to 6 should obtain prior permission
u/S. 25N of the ID Act and are also required to display the
Seniority List under Rule 81 of Gujarat Rules and also that the
retrenchment compensation is required to be paid before removing any
of the workers from service and further declaring that the
termination of the workers on 1.7.95, 8.7.95 and 23.11.95 were
absolutely illegal, null and void and directing the Resp. No. 1 and
2 to reinstate these workers in service with full continuity and
arrears of wages within a week;
(B) Declaring
that the Judgment of Supreme Court is required to be implemented
immediately and directing the Resp. to include all the workers
engaged through the device of Labour Contractor at Ukai for the
purpose of absorption and further directing the Resp. Board to
prepare a seniority list of all the workers based on their first
date of entry in service and absorb the workers whose juniors are
retained are required to be absorbed from one one reason or another.
(C)
Any other relief which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit be granted.
(D) The
cost of this petition is quantified at Rs.3500/- which may please be
awarded.
(E) During
the pendency and final disposal of this Spl. C.A., Your Lordships
may be pleased to restrain the Respondents from removing any of the
workers on 1.1.96 or any other subsequent day and further directing
the Resp. No.1 and 2 to ensure that the complete Status quo is
maintained as on the date of Supreme Court judgment and no worker is
removed from service or subjected to adverse change in its service
condition, in any manner whatsoever.
Considering
aforesaid prayers made by petitioner where termination order passed
by respondent dated 1st July, 1995, 8th July,
1995 and 23rd November, 1995 are challenged in present
petition by petitioner panchayat. Even though, in respect to
termination of individual workmen by respondent on aforesaid date,
industrial dispute was raised before Assistant Commissioner of
Labour and ultimately it was referred to for adjudication to
concerned labour court. It is submitted by learned Advocate Mrs.
Sangeeta Pahwa for petitioner that said individual reference have
been decided on 30th June, 2001 by Labour Court Ahmedabad
where labour court, Ahmedabad has granted relief in favour of
workman concerned against which special civil application No. 10772
of 2002 has been filed by respondent Board.
In
light of this back ground and considering prayers made by petitioner
in present writ petition, according to my opinion, now, this
petition has become infructuous and, therefore, it has been disposed
of as having become infructuous with clarification that the disposal
of present petition as having become infructuous would not come in
the way of present petitioner while examining matter for final
hearing being Special Civil Application No. 10772 of 2002.
Accordingly this petition is disposed of as having become
infructuous with no order as to costs.
(H.K.
Rathod,J.)
Vyas
Top