Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/12649/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12649 of 2008
=========================================================
DY
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER - Petitioner
Versus
KANTIBHAI
KARAMBHAI VASAVA - Respondent
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
RAKESH PATEL FOR MR DC DAVE for Petitioner :
1,
None for Respondent :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 16/10/2008
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
Shri Rakesh Patel for Mr. D.C. Dave, learned advocate for the
petitioner.
The
petitioner, Deputy Executive Engineer, Panchayat (Road &
Building Department), Sub-section Dediyapada, Narmada has filed this
petition challenging the order dated 15th May, 2008
passed by the Labour Court, Bharuch below Exh. 13 in Recovery
Application No. 128 of 2008, whereunder, the Court has passed an
order allowing Exh. 13 application, whereunder, the respondent had
objected to engaging the advocate without his consent and
appropriate order in their behalf. It is the case of the petitioner
that respondent workman’s services were terminated on 23rd
December, 2002. He raised Industrial Dispute and the Competent
Authority referred the matter for adjudication in March, 2004, which
came to be numbered as Reference No. 140 of 2004. The said Reference
was decided ex-parte on 4th July, 2006 against present
petitioner. The Labour Court awarded reinstatement with 50% back
wages and cost of Rs.500/-. As the same had remained un-complied,
the respondent workman has filed Recovery Application being Recovery
Application No. 128 of 2007 before the Labour Court, Bharuch,
wherein, the respondent filed Ex.13 application raising objection
that petitioner cannot engage and got itself represented through an
advocate without consent of the workman. This application came to be
allowed by the Labour Court vide order dated 15th May,
2008, which is subject matter of challenge in this petition.
Shri
Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner solely contended that the
advocate, who has been not permitted to appear, had been
represented the petitioner in all the proceedings. Except that, no
other submission is canvassed for assailing the order impugned.
This
Court has perused the order impugned in this petition. The Labour
Court has while allowing the application clearly recorded that in
view of the provisions of Section 36(3) of the I.D. Act, 1947, the
permission does not deserve to be granted especially when while
producing the vakalatnama no permission was sought for and ‘no
objection’ had been taken from the workman. The workman is
represented through representative of union. The Court has relied
upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in 1976 2nd
LLJ. pg.409 and held that permission does not require to be granted.
This
Court is of the view that impugned order does not call for any
interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as the
workman himself is also not represented by an advocate and the Court
has found it objectionable that vakalatnama produced without
obtaining any ‘no objection’ from the workman. In view of this, the
petition deserves to be rejected as having no merits and
accordingly, it is rejected. However, there shall be no order as to
costs.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT,
J.)
pallav
Top