Gujarat High Court High Court

Devshi vs Public on 17 February, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Devshi vs Public on 17 February, 2011
Author: K.M.Thaker,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/16060/2010	 3	ORDER

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 16060 of 2010
 

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

 

DEVSHI
ALABHAI MAHESWARI - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

PUBLIC
HEALTH WORKS DEPARMENT - DIVISION NO 2, GUJARAT WATER & 4 -
Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
RUSHABH R SHAH for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MR SHASHIKANT S GADE for Respondent(s) : 1,
4, 
None for Respondent(s) : 2 - 3,
5, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 17/02/2011 

 

ORAL
ORDER

1.
Heard Mr. R.R. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner.

2.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the letter/communication dated
21.9.2010.

3.
By the said letter/communication, which is also in form of an order
passed by the respondent No.3, the petitioner is now sought to be
placed under non-technical post and his salary is sought to
be re-fixed which would adversely affect the petitioner. The
petitioner has sought to challenge the said letter/communication on
the ground that there is no justification of reverting him i.e.
placing him under non-technical post and that the order has been
passed without hearing the petitioner.

4.
The petition is sought to be preferred by invoking provision under
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the
“Act”). If the petitioner intends to invoke provision
under the Act then the issues involved/raised will have to be decided
in light of evidence and after adjudication process hence petitioner
ought to pursue statutory alternative remedy provided under the Act
and approach the appropriate forum with his grievance. On the other
hand if the petitioner seeks to challenge the said order passed by a
statutory Board, then the petitioner would have to file appropriate
petition i.e. not under I.D. Act or take out other proceeding
challenging the said order. The present petition invoking the
proceedings under the I.D. Act challenging the said
letter/communication cannot be entertained. The Counsel has, thus,
submitted that the petitioner will prefer appropriate proceedings
including appropriate writ proceedings.

5.
The present petition is disposed of only on the aforesaid ground
without going into the merits of the order. It would be open to the
petitioner to approach appropriate forum as may be considered
appropriate in the facts of the case. The present order will not
stand in way of the petitioner in pursuing appropriate forum/remedy.

(K.M.THAKER,J.)

Suresh*

   

Top