Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/5899/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5899 of 2010
=========================================
GUJARAT
LABOUR FEDERATION - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
DIPAK R DAVE for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MS MONALI BHATT, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2
MR HS MUNSHAW for Respondent(s) :
3,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 15/09/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. By
way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction
quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 28/01/2010 passed
by respondent no. 2 by which respondent no. 2 has refused to refer
the dispute to the concerned Court/Tribunal in connection with the
demand notice dated 14/05/2007.
2. From
the impugned order it appears that after the demand was raised by the
petitioner vide demand notice dated 14/05/2007 there is a further
development and the District Panchayat has decided to the get work
done through outsourcing and all the workmen are considered as the
employees of the Contractor and considering the same, respondent no.
2 has refused to make the reference by observing that the concerned
workmen have accepted the same.
3. Shri
Deepak Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner
has submitted that as such the aforesaid was not the case on behalf
of respondent no. 3 before the Conciliation Officer. However the
fact remains that subsequently there is a further development and
change in the system and after the demand notice dated 14/05/2007 it
has been decided to get the work through outsourcing and all the
concerned workmen are considered to be the employees of the
Contractor. Shri Deepak Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf
of the petitioner has submitted that in that case it can also be said
that such a contract is sham and bogus. However, as such the
petitioner has to raise a fresh dispute and demand. Shri Deepak
Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has
submitted that in that case suitable observation be made that as and
when fresh dispute is raised and/or fresh demand notice is given the
same shall be considered in accordance with law on its own merits,
without, in any way, being influenced by the impugned order.
4. In
view of the above subsequent development, if the petitioner is still
aggrieved by any subsequent action and/or development it will be open
for the petitioner to raise a fresh dispute by fresh demand notice
and as and when the same is raised the same may be considered in
accordance with law on its own merits by the appropriate authority,
without, in any way, being influenced by the impugned order.
5. With
this, the present Special Civil Application is disposed of.
(M.R.
SHAH, J.)
siji
Top