Posted On by &filed under Gujarat High Court, High Court.


Gujarat High Court
Gujarat vs Manubai on 4 August, 2010
Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/10764/2002	 3/ 3	JUDGMENT 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10764 of 2002
 

 
 
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
 

MANUBAI
GANGARAM BAROT - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
ASHISH M DAGLI for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 04/08/2010 

 

ORAL
JUDGMENT

Though
served, none appears on behalf of the respondent.

1. By
way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set
aside the order passed by the Dy. Labour Commissioner in Approval
Application No.131/2002 dated 30.08.2002, whereby, the said
application came to be rejected.

2. The
facts in brief are that the respondent was working as a Conductor
with the petitioner-Corporation. In connection with some alleged
misappropriation of funds pertaining to the way-bills, the respondent
came to be dismissed from service on 26.03.2002, after following due
process of law. An application u/s.33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act was moved
before the Dy. Labour Commissioner for seeking approval of the same.
However, the said application came to be rejected by way of the
impugned order. Hence, this petition.

3. Heard
learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents on
record. It appears from the record that the respondent was given
sufficient opportunity before the authority below to present his
case. However, he had not remained present. One of the reasons given
by the authority concerned while rejecting the approval application
is that the default case has been initiated belatedly. However, the
said finding recorded by the authority concerned appears to be
misplaced inasmuch as on an earlier occasion, the respondent was
dismissed from service in a case numbered as Default Case No.381/1993
and as a result of the same, the present case being Default Case
No.1/1994 was ordered to be closed down subject to re-opening the
same, if the order of dismissal is modified by any Court of Law.

4. Further,
it appears from the record that on two different occasions, the
respondent had been dismissed from service in the past. Looking to
the documents on record, I find that the authority concerned has
committed serious error in rejecting the Approval Application
preferred by the petitioner and hence, the same deserves to be
quashed and set aside.

5. For
the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed. The impugned order
passed by the authority concerned is quashed and set aside. Rule is
made absolute.

[K.

S. JHAVERI, J.]

Pravin/*

   

Top


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

8 queries in 0.109 seconds.