Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/15849/2003 2/ 2 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15849 of 2003
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=============================================================
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 ?
=============================================================
GUJARAT
STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DAUD
UMARJI VALI PATEL - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MRS
FALGUNI D PATEL for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR JS BRAHMBHATT for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 28/06/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
By
way of present petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for
quashing and setting aside the judgment and award dated 29th
July 1992 passed by the Labour Court in Reference (LCB) No.233 of
1991 below Ex.75.
When
the present petition came up for admission hearing before this Court
(Coram : Ravi R. Tripathi, J) on 14th November 2003, this
Court passed the following order :
Mr.J.S.
Brahmbhatt, learned advocate appearing on caveat on behalf of
respondent is not present when the matter is called out in the first
half. Hence, the matter was kept in the second half also. Mr.J.S.
Brahmbhatt is not present.
Rule.
Ad-interim relief in terms of para 8(C).
It
is pertinent to note that by way of aforesaid order, the petitioner
has been enjoying the ad-interim relief in terms of paragraph 8(C)
of the petition. Further, it is required to be noted that as per the
statement made by the learned advocate for the petitioner, the
petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation on 30th
May 2006 and he has retired.
In
view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the
opinion that as the interlocutory order passed by this Court earlier
has not been disturbed till date, the parties are required to abide
by the said interlocutory order. Further, it is required to be noted
that no person who has superannuated from service is entitled to any
benefit under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
For
the foregoing reasons, the present petition is hereby partly
allowed. The parties are directed to abide by the aforesaid
interlocutory order. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as
to costs.
(K.S.
Jhaveri, J)
Aakar
Top