Gujarat High Court High Court

New vs Chief on 19 October, 2011

Gujarat High Court
New vs Chief on 19 October, 2011
Author: Ravi R.Tripathi,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/16015/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 16015 of 2011
 

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

NEW
GUJARAT MAZDOOR MANCH - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

CHIEF
OFFICER & 3 - Respondent(s)
 

===================================== 
Appearance
: 
MR TR MISHRA for Petitioner(s)
: 1, 
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
4. 
=====================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
		
	

 

Date
: 19/10/2011 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

1.0 The
petitioner – New Gujarat Mazdoor Manch is before this Court
with a prayer that, ‘the learned Judge of the Labour Court, Anand
be directed to dispose of Reference (LCAD) No. 3/2003 within
stipulated time looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case’.

2.0 Learned
advocate Mr. Mishra for the petitioner invited attention of the Court
to a fact that the Reference was filed in the year 2003 by order
dated 22nd January 2003. In that Reference, right to file
Reply of the Management was closed on 19th July 2007. The
learned advocate for the Management filed an application on 18 th
June 2009 for reopening, which was reopened on a condition
that the Management shall pay Rs.200/- to the workman. In the order,
it is mentioned that the application is filed after one year from the
date of closure of right to file Written Statement (19/07/2007 –
18/06/2009 is calculated to be one year by the learned Judge).

3.0 After
this order was passed on 11th February 2010, the present
petitioner found time to complain that amount of Rs.200/- is not paid
and the workman is not cross-examined. It was only on 18th
August 2011 i.e. well after 1½ years and therefore, on this
lethargy of the petitioner, the petition is not entertained and the
same is dismissed.

3.1 However,
on a request made by the learned advocate for the petitioner it is
clarified that, non-entertainment of this petition should not be a
ground for the learned Judge for not proceeding with the Reference of
2003 as expeditiously as possible.

[
Ravi R. Tripathi, J. ]

hiren

   

Top