Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/4170/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4170 of 2010
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4171 of 2010
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4172 of 2010
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4173 of
2010
=========================================================
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER - Petitioner(s)
Versus
RAMJIBHAI
O VASAVA - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
DC DAVE for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) :
1,
MRHARSHADKPATEL for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 14/05/2010
ORAL ORDER
Heard
learned advocate Mr.P.A.Jadeja on behalf of petitioner and learned
advocate Mr.H.K.Patel on behalf of respondent. Considering the
submissions, made by both the parties, question involved and raised
in present petition requires detailed examination. Hence, Rule.
Learned advocate Mr.H.K.Patel waives service of notice of Rule on
behalf of respondent. With consent of both the learned advocates,
the matter is taken-up for final hearing.
In
each matter, petitioner has challenged the interim order passed by
learned Labour Court under Section 36(4) of Industrial Disputes Act,
1947. Before Labour Court on behalf of petitioner advocate
Mr.Himanshu I. Shah filed Vakalatnama with application to permit him
to appear on behalf of petitioner, which was pending before learned
Labour Court, Bharuch. This application for engaging the advocate
has been objected by learned representative of respondent-employee
in each reference proceeding under provisions of Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 if any advocate is required to be engaged, he may be
engaged with the consent of other parties and with the leave of the
Labour Court. Therefore, learned Labour Court has considered
objection raised by representative of employee. Application which
was to engage the advocate was rejected by learned Labour Court by
the order dated 13.01.2010.
Learned
advocate Mr.H.K.Patel on behalf of respondent submitted that
initially ex-parte award was passed by learned Labour Court because
of the negligence of petitioner. This ex-parte award was passed on
17.03.2005 in Reference (LCB) No.222 of 2003 and other allied
references. Against
ex-parte award, application for setting aside the said award was
made by petitioner, which was allowed by learned Labour Court,
Bharuch on 08.10.2008. Thereafter, the matter remained pending
because of non-cooperation of petitioner. Learned advocate Mr.Patel
submitted that if petitioner is permitted then, matter will get
further delay and representative of the employee rightly raised the
objection because more than seven years have been passed from the
date of each reference. He further submitted that there was some
reason to raise objections, otherwise normally respondent-employee
is not raising objection in engaging advocate. He submitted that in
Recovery Application No. 148 of 2005, 149 of 2005 and 150 of 2005 in
which no objection has been raised by representative of
respondent-Union against engaging advocate by petitioner. Learned
Labour Court after considering the objection raised by respondent
representative, rejected the application made petitioner.
Learned
advocate Mr.Jadeja on behalf of petitioner submitted that they will
co-operate hearing before learned Labour Court, Bharuch, if
permission to engage the advocate is given by respondent. He also
submitted that Deputy Executive Engineer or Executive Engineer
cannot remain present and cannot proceed with the Reference because
they do not have sufficient legal knowledge to appear before learned
Labour Court, therefore, it may cause prejudice, if petitioner is
not permitted to engage advocate.
In
light of these backgrounds, according to my opinion the reference is
of the year 2003 and more than seven years have been passed and
still matter is not finally decided by learned Labour Court. If this
Court, direct learned Labour Court to decide it within some
reasonable time, while giving permission to engage the advocate,
then, it will meet the ends of justice between parties.
In
view of order passed by learned Labour Court, Bharuch on 13.01.2010
challenged in each petition is hereby quashed and set aside with a
direction to learned Labour Court to permit petitioner to engage the
advocate in each reference proceedings and learned representatives
of respondent shall have to give their consent for engaging the
advocate as learned advocate Mr.H.K.Patel has not raised any
objection for giving consent to the petitioner to engage the
advocate. It is further directed to learned Labour Court, Bharuch to
decide each reference within a period of 6(Six) months from the date
of receiving a copy of this order. Petitioner is directed to
co-operate hearing before learned Labour Court in each case and not
to ask for any unnecessary adjournments except, unavoidable
circumstances. It is further directed to petitioner-Deputy Executive
Engineer, Road and Building Sub Division, Dediapada, Dist. Narmada
to supply all the necessary details as required by advocate who will
be engaged by petitioner. Accordingly, present petitions are
allowed.
Rule
is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct
service is permitted.
(H.K.RATHOD,
J.)
..mitesh..
Top