Gujarat High Court High Court

Jitendrakumar vs Visnagar on 3 July, 2008

Gujarat High Court
Jitendrakumar vs Visnagar on 3 July, 2008
Author: Jayant Patel,&Nbsp;Honourable Kureshi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

MCA/866/2008	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 866 of 2008
 

In


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3440 of 2001
 

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


 

JITENDRAKUMAR
BABULAL BAROT - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

VISNAGAR
MUNICIPALITY - Opponent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
TEJAS M BAROT for Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR BS
PATEL for Opponent(s) : 1, 
MRS RANJAN B PATEL for Opponent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 03/07/2008 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)

The
basis of the present petition is the Award passed by the Labour
Court and its further modification by this Court vide order dated
17.07.2007 in Special Civil Application No.3440 of 2001.

Upon
hearing Mr.Barot for the petitioner and Mr.B.S.Patel for the
respondent, it appears that this Court even in its order dated
17.07.2007 has not directed for implementation of the Award within
some stipulated time limit and therefore, there is no specific order
for such purpose. The consequence would be that the Award of the
Labour Court with the further modification by this Court was
confirmed.

The
petitioner for execution of the Award has the remedy under the
Industrial Disputes Act, by way of its inbuilt mechanism, as per the
decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Kishorbhai D. Solanki Vs. Nagjibhai Muljibhai Patel reported at
2002(2) GLR 754. Hence, in view of the reasons recorded in the
decision of this Court in the case of Kishorebhai D.Solanki (supra),
the present contempt application is further not entertained and
disposed of accordingly. However, it is clarified that the present
order shall not operate as a bar to the petitioner in resorting to
the remedy as observed by this Court in the above referred decision.

(JAYANT PATEL, J.)

(AKIL KURESHI, J.)

*bjoy

   

Top