Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/2246/2011 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2246 of 2011
=========================================================
DILIPKUMAR
LUNJABHAI BARIA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
CHIEF
OFFICER - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
DIPAK R DAVE for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
MEHUL H RATHOD for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 11/05/2011
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned advocate Mr. DR Dave on behalf of petitioner Dilipkumar
Lunjabhai Baria, learned advocate Mr. MH Rathod appearing for
respondent.
In
present petition, award passed by Labour Court, Dahod in reference
no. 922/2008 old reference no. 182/2005 dated 25/11/2010 is
challenged in respect to denying 80% back wages of interim period by
Labour Court, Dahod against present petitioner. In response to
notice issued by this Court, on behalf of Chief Officer, Dahod
Nagarpalika affidavit in reply is placed on record. Copy thereof is
served to learned advocate Mr. Dave. The averment made in para 4 by
respondent to the effect that Labour Court has passed an ex parte
award, against which, Misc. Restoration application no. 6/2011 is
filed by respondent before Labour Court, Dahod along with delay
condone application, wherein notice has been issued by Labour Court,
Dahod to petitioner returnable on 8/6/2011.
Considering
fact that award in question itself is challenged by respondent
filing an application for setting aside it under Rule 26(A) of I. D.
Act, 1947. Therefore, at this stage, this Court is not entertained
petition filed by petitioner denying 80% back wages of interim
period to petitioner. However, an application preferred by
respondent if it is ultimately decided then whatever relief is
granted in favour of petitioner, for that, if petitioner is not
satisfied then it is open for petitioner to challenge such direction
before this Court by filing appropriate petition.
Therefore,
this petition is disposed of by this Court in considering aforesaid
subsequent events which will not come in way when application
preferred by respondent is decided by Labour Court.
(H.K.RATHOD,
J)
asma
Top
