Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/30160/2007 5/ 5 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 30160 of 2007
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
DARSHANBHAI
NATUBHAI PATEL - Petitioner(s)
Versus
KAMARSAD
NAGARPALIKA & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
TR MISHRA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
MR MUKESH H RATHOD for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
MR KJ DWIVEDI
ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 3 -
4.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 26/08/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. This
petition is filed by the workman of the respondent Nagarpalika. Since
even after waiting for almost 30 months from the date of award the
respondent Nagarpalika did not comply with Award, the petitioner
filed this petition with a prayer that the respondent Nagarpalika may
be directed to implement the award. Until then the respondent
Nagarpalika had not taken any action in connection with the Award
dated 21.11.2006.
2. It
is necessary to note that even after the presentation of the petition
in December, 2007 and even after the Court issued notice on
28.12.2007, the respondent Nagarpalika did not take any action for
almost 8 months i.e. in all for almost 21 months since the date of
Award.
3. Today,
when the Court was about to pass direction in view of the aforesaid
facts and in light of the relief prayed for in the petition, Mr.
Rathod, learned advocate for the respondent Nagarpalika submitted
that on 29.7.2008 i.e. after almost 7 months since this Court issued
notice in the petition and after almost 20 months since the date of
Award, the respondent ? Nagarplaik has filed Misc. Application
under Rule 26A of the Industrial Disputes Act for restoration of the
proceedings, since the Award, implementation of which is prayed for
in the present petition has been passed ex parte.
4. In
response to the said submission of learned advocate Mr. Rathod, Mr.
Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the
application which is claimed to have been filed by the petitioner now
after 20 months is obviously time barred and it appears to have been
filed almost after 7 months since the Court issued notice in the
petition only with a view to frustrating present petition. He
submitted that in view of such facts, the respondent Nagarpalika may
be directed to at least reinstate the petitioner during the
consideration of the Misc. Application by the Labour Court.
5. In
the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, in light of
the submission made by Mr. Rathod, learned advocate that now after 20
months, the respondent Nagarpalika has filed Misc. Application No.7
of 2008 on 29.7.2008 with a request for setting aside the ex parte
Award, the respondent Nagarpalika is directed, by way of ad hoc and
interim arrangement during the consideration of the Misc.
Application, to reinstate the petitioner without prejudice its rights
and contentions in the Misc. Application and to start paying him
regular wages. The respondent Nagarpalika shall issue necessary
orders of reinstating the petitioner w.e.f. 1.9.2008 without
prejudice to the prayer in the Misc. Application.
6. It
is clarified that the Labour Court will decide Misc. Application in
accordance with law after considering all submissions and objection
of the petitioner – workman herein and also without being influenced
by the fact that by virtue of this Court’s order, the respondent
Nagarpalika is directed to reinstate the petitioner. The said aspect
should not influence the Labour Court in taking any decision in
connection with the relief prayed for by the respondent Nagarpalika.
It is also clarified that this ad-hoc arrangement shall not create
any equity or right in favour of the petitioner.
7. It
is pertinent to note that on 4.1.2008, the Executive Committee of the
respondent Nagarpalika is said to have passed Resolution being
Resolution No.37 taking decision to reinstate the respondent on his
original post and yet the said Resolution is not implemented during
this entire period of 7 months and instead now on 29.7.2008, as
claimed by Mr. Rathod, learned advocate Misc. Application is filed
in the Labour Court. Be that as it may, The conduct of the Executive
Committee and of the respondent Nagarpalika that even after the
Resolution dated 4.1.2008, the respondent Nagarpalika did not inform
this Court about the said Resolution and kept on dragging this
petition, is unjustified and for such action, it is considered
appropriate to grant costs in favour of the petitioner, which is
quantified at Rs.2000/-. The aforesaid Resolution No.37 dated
4.8.2008 is kept on record.
8. In
view of the aforesaid direction, Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for
the petitioner does not press this petition at this stage.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of at this stage, as not
pressed. Direct service is permitted.
(K.M.THAKER,
J.)
ynvyas
Top