Gujarat High Court High Court

Iqbalbhai vs Garrison on 11 August, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Iqbalbhai vs Garrison on 11 August, 2011
Author: Ravi R.Tripathi,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/10589/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10589 of 2011
 

 
 
=========================================================


 

IQBALBHAI
A MALEK - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

GARRISON
POLYSACKS PRIVATE LIMITED & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
Appearance : 
MR
ASHISH H SHAH for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 11/08/2011 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

1. Present
petition is filed being aggrieved by an order passed in Misc.
Application No.14 of 2009 filed in Reference (LCB) No.388 of 1997
seeking restoration and condonation of the delay in a single
application.

1.1 The
order was passed by the learned Judge on 21/07/2011 and the learned
Judge of the Labour Court No.1, Bharuch was pleased to reject the
application.

2. Heard
learned Advocate, Mr.Champaneri, for Mr.Ashish H Shah, for the
petitioner.

3. The
learned Judge has rightly referred to provisions of sub-rule (1) and
(2) of Rule 26A of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat), Rules 1966. The
learned Judge has held that when there is delay in filing application
under sub-rule (1) of Rule 26A, a separate application is required to
be filed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 26A. On perusal of the said
Rules, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Judge has not
committed any error.

4. Learned
Advocate for the petitioner invited attention of the Court to
contents of the application but the Court restrains itself from
commenting anything upon contents of that application as that may be
prejudiced the rights of the petitioner in filing fresh application
under sub-rule (1) and (2) of Rule 26A.

5. The
petition stands dismissed.

(RAVI
R TRIPATHI, J.)

sompura

   

Top