Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/12168/2007 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12168 of 2007
=========================================================
CHANDRAKANT
BALDEVDAS NAYAK - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
BANK OF INDIA & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MANOJ SHRIMALI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None
for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 07/05/2007
ORAL
ORDER
1. Heard
learned advocate Mr. Manoj Shrimali appearing on behalf of
petitioner.
2. According
to petitioner, he was dismissed from service. The departmental appeal
was also dismissed and he raised industrial disputes under the
machinery of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Ultimately, industrial
dispute against the dismissal has referred for adjudication to the
Industrial Tribunal (Central) at Ahmedabad being Reference No.116 of
2006. During this interim period, petitioner has acquitted by the
competent Criminal Court.
3. Learned
advocate Mr. Shrimali submitted that Hon’ble Member of the Tribunal
is not available since more than one year and one Member is coming
from Bombay to conduct the cases for some period. He also submitted
that this Court has directed to Central Government to appoint
immediately the Member of Industrial Tribunal (Central) at Ahmedabad,
but, no steps so far has been taken by the Government to appoint the
Member. Therefore, present petition is filed by the petitioner.
4. Once
the petitioner has already approached under the machinery of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, against the dismissal order, this
Court cannot entertain this petition. Therefore, petition is not
entertained by this Court only on that ground without considering the
merits of the matter.
5. However,
it is directed to the respondents ? State Bank of India to consider
the case of petitioner during the interim period on the ground that
petitioner is already acquitted by the competent criminal Court and
pass appropriate reasoned order.
6. In
view of above observations and direction, present petition is
disposed of without expressing any opinion on merits. Direct service
is permitted.
[H.K.
RATHOD, J.]
#Dave
Top