Loading...

Parmar vs Max on 26 September, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Parmar vs Max on 26 September, 2011
Author: Ravi R.Tripathi,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/13448/2011	 3/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13448 of 2011
 

 


 

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


 

PARMAR
CHANDUBHAI KACHRABHAI - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

MAX
VIGIL SECURITY PVT LTD. - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
Appearance : 
MR
HEMAL K ACHARYA for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 26/09/2011
 

 

 

ORAL
ORDER

1. The
present petition is thoroughly misconceived, inasmuch as, the
petition is filed against one ‘Max Vigil Security Pvt Ltd’ against
whom the relief prayed for is that, “Be pleased to issue
Writ of Mandamus and/or Certiorari and/or order and/or direction
given to the respondent management to reinstate the petitioner on his
original post with continuity of service with full back wages as
approval application filed u/s.33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes
Act is withdrawn by the respondent and as the order of the Hon’ble
Industrial Tribunal (Central Govt.) Ahmedabad on dated 29.07.2011 as
the law laid down by the Apex Court., dated 29/07/2011”.
What is further prayed is that, “Be pleased to
direct the respondent to comply the law establish by the
Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of
Jaipur Jilla Sahakari Sangh U/s.33 (2) (b) of Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 and to reinstate the petitioner on his original post
with continuity of service and with full back wages.”

2. Learned Advocate Mr.Acharya
for the petitioner files an affidavit for placing further documents
before this Court. Along with affidavit, he has placed a copy of
order dated 01/10/2010 which is titled as ‘dismissal order’. Second
paragraph of that order reads as under:

“In
this circumstances, it is presumed that you have no explanation to
second show cause notice and therefore you are dismissed from your
services of Max Vigil Security with effect from 1st
Oct.2010. A cheque No.869327 dated 1st
Oct.2010 of SBI, RTO Branch, Ahmedabad of Rs.7124/- (Rupees seven
thousand one hundred and twenty four only) for one month notice pay
is attached, as per section 33 (2) (b) of Industrial Disputes Act,
1947.”

3. Alongwith that learned
Advocate for the petitioner has also produced order dated 14/09/2000
issued by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India. Learned
Advocate for the petitioner invited attention of the Court to the
withdrawal application filed by the respondent herein which is
produced at Annexure – D (Page No.23). Learned Advocate for
the petitioner also invited attention of the Court to order passed on
29/07/2011 by the Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad
in Approval Application (CGITA) No.1 of 2011 – Annexure – E
(Page No.25) whereby Exh.11 application is allowed and approval
application is dismissed as withdrawn.

4. Learned
Advocate for the petitioner is not able to show to this Court that
any reference is pending against the respondent herein. If that is
so, how come an application
for approval was filed by the present respondent. It appears that
there is no reference pending as on date against the present
respondent and if that is so there was no question of filing any
approval application and there is nothing wrong in withdrawing that
application.

4.1 If
under misconception, any application is filed, that will not give any
right to the present petitioner. Learned Advocate for the petitioner
made available for perusal a decision of the Hon’ble the Supreme
Court in the matter of ‘ Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi
Vikas Bank Ltd., Vs. Ram Gopal Sharma & Ors.,’
reported in 2002 I LLJ 834. But, on the face of it, that will have
no application to the facts of the present case as well as there is
no reference pending against the respondent herein.

5. In view of the above, present
petition is not only misconceived but is without any substance. The
same is dismissed.

(RAVI
R TRIPATHI, J.)

sompura

   

Top

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information