Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/13040/2000 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13040 of 2000
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 ?
=========================================================
HITESH
POONABHAI CHANWADIA & 24 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
UPLETA
NAGAR PALIKA & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
DG CHAUHAN for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 25.
HL PATEL ADVOCATES for Respondent(s) :
1,
MR PARESH UPADHYAY for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 07/05/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. By
way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing
and setting aside the order dated 6.12.2000, whereby the petitioners
have been terminated from the service.
2. The
case of the petitioners is that, they were working on permanent
respective posts in the Respondent Nagarpalika since several years.
Thereafter, petitioners were terminated by order of the then
president of Upleta Nagarpalika dated 7.2.1998. The petitioners had,
therefore, filed regular Civil Suits No.13 to 37 of 1998 in the Court
of Civil Judge (J.D.), and also prayed for interim injunction on
9.2.1998. The learned Civil Judge (J.D.) dismissed the suit.
Thereafter, petitioners filed S.C.A. No. 1599/98 before this Court
and after hearing the parties this Court passed an order on 19.3.1998
directing the Respondent Municipality to reinstate all the
petitioners in service. The Respondent Nagarpalika then filed LPA
No. 378 of 1998 before the Division Bench of this Court against the
order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench quashed
and set aside the order of learned Single Judge. However, on a
representation, all the petitioners were reinstated in service.
Thereafter, new incharge – president Shri Vrajlal Panchabhai Gajera,
terminated the services of the petitioners w.e.f. From 6.12.2000.
3. Heard
the learned Advocates for the respective parties. Prima-facie in
view of the Full Bench decision, in the case of Municipality V/s
G.P.M.E. Union, reported in 2004 (2) GLH 692, it will not be
appropriate to entertain this petition. The proper remedy for the
petitioners is to raise Industrial Dispute for breach of Industrial
law, if any. Accordingly, if such dispute is raised before the Labour
Court, the same will be decided as expeditiously as possible, keeping
in mind, the above Full Bench decision and law prevailing in the
subject matter.
4. With
the above observation, the petition is dismissed.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.)
Pankaj
Top