Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
MCA/2523/2009 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 2523 of 2009
In
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1130 of 2008
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3081 of 2008
=========================================================
MANILAL
SUKHLAL KALAL - Applicant(s)
Versus
C
S HOTELS PVT LTD (HOTEL KARNAVATI) & 11 - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
TR MISHRA
for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR SN SOPARKAR Sr Advocate with Mr SACHIN D
VASAVADA for Opponent(s) : 1 - 2.
None for Opponent(s) : 3 - 5,7 -
12.
MR DG SHUKLA for Opponent(s) :
6,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER 14th May 2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT)
The applicant-Manilal Shuklal Kalal, a former employee of the
Opponent-C.S Hotels Private Limited has preferred this Application
for review of our common judgment and order dated 15th
October 2008 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1130 of 2008 arising
from Special Civil Application No. 3081 of 2008 and other Appeals.
Learned advocate Mr. Mishra has appeared for the applicant. He has
submitted that the applicant-workman had earned an Award dated 11th
November 1993 passed in Reference [LCA] Nos. 1754 of 1992 & 1909
of 1992 by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad. The applicant is, therefore,
entitled to the benefit of that Award. Instead the opponent-CS Hotels
Private Limited has paid a sum of Rs. 14,110/= in accordance with the
direction issued in our above referred judgment dated 15th
October 2008. Mr. Mishra has submitted that the applicant was not
party in any of the matters disposed of by our common judgment and
order dated 15th October 2008. The said order is,
therefore, required to be reviewed.
Mr.
Soparkar has appeared for the Opponent-C.S Hotels Private Limited. He
has submitted that the present application for review is not
maintainable. The applicant-workman has received the benefit under
Order dated 15th October 2008. Under the said order, a sum
of Rs. 2,19,994/= was paid to the applicant after deducting
Rs.1,99,821/= earlier paid to the applicant. The difference of Rs.
20,173/= and of Rs. 14,110/= has been paid to the applicant.
Mr. Mishra has disputed the factum of the receipt of the
aforesaid amount by the applicant.
It is not in dispute that the applicant was not a party to any of the
matters decided on 15th October 2008. The application for
review at the instance of the applicant is, therefore, not
maintainable. If at all the applicant has a right to receive the
monetary benefits under the Award dated 11th November
1993, he may approach the appropriate forum.
For
the aforesaid reason, the Application is rejected.
{Ms.
R.M Doshit, J.}
{K.M Thaker,
J.}
Prakash*
Top