Gujarat High Court High Court

Misceliancous vs Sabarkantha on 3 September, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Misceliancous vs Sabarkantha on 3 September, 2010
Author: M.R. Shah,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/8315/2010	 3/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8315 of 2010
 

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


 

MISCELIANCOUS
MAZDOOR SUBHA & 1 - Petitioners
 

Versus
 

SABARKANTHA
DISTRICT COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD & 3 - Respondents
 

======================================
Appearance : 
MR
KH BAXI for the Petitioners. 
MR HAMESH NAIDU for Respondent No:
1, 
MS MONALI BHATT, AGP for Respondent Nos : 2 -
4. 
====================================== 

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
		
	

 

Date
: 03/09/2010 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

1. By
way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioners for themselves and on behalf of other employees of
respondent No.1, as per statement at Annexure A to the
petition, have prayed for the following main reliefs :

11(b) be
pleased to quash and set aside the letter at Annexure F vide
which the resignation of the concerned petitioner’s members at
Annexure A was accepted by the respondents;

(c) be
pleased to cancel the resignation given by the petitioners and to
direct the respondent No.1 to take back the members at Annexure A
in service.

2. It
is reported by Mr.Naidu, learned advocate appearing on behalf of
respondent No.1 that a similar and identical question is pending with
Labour Court, Himmatnagar.

3. Mr.K.H.Baxi,
learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted
that the proceeding before Labour Court may take more than 5 years,
in that case, the dispute might become infructuous. The aforesaid
apprehension is not well founded. If ultimately the employees succeed
in the Labour Court (as contended by the petitioners), they can be
compensated in terms of money by awarding backwages, However, he has
requested to make suitable observations to direct the concerned
Labour Court to decide and dispose of the Reference within stipulated
time.

Mr.Naidu,
learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 has submitted
that he has no objection, if the dispute is referred to the concerned
Labour Court. However, for that, the petitioners have to submit
appropriate formal application before respondent Nos.2 and 3 so that
such a dispute can be referred by the Appropriate Authority to the
concerned Labour Court.

4. In
view of the above, the present petition is disposed of without
further entering into the merits of the case and without expressing
anything on merits in favour of either parties by relegating the
petitioners to approach respondent Nos.2 and 3 by way of formal
application to refer the dispute with respect to superannuation
/resignation of the employees in question and as agreed by learned
advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, they have no
objection, if such dispute is referred to the concerned Labour Court,
Appropriate Authority is hereby directed to refer such a dispute to
the concerned Labour Court for adjudication at the earliest but not
later than one month from the date of receipt of copy of such a
formal application. Thereafter, dispute being referred to Labour
Court, the concerned Labour Court to decide and dispose of such a
Reference at the earliest but not later than two years from the date
of receipt of such Reference, in accordance with law and on merits,
for which, this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits.

With
this, the present petition is disposed of. Notice is discharged. No
costs.

[M.R.SHAH,J]

*dipti

   

Top