Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/2869/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR VACATING STAY No. 2869 of 2010
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10724 of 2004
=========================================================
PIYUSH
PRABHUDASBHAI KAPADI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
CHIEF
OFFICER MANGROL NAGARPALIKA & 7 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
ANSHIN H DESAI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR SK BUKHARI for Respondent(s) : 1,
None
for Respondent(s) : 2,
MR AMAR D MITHANI for Respondent(s) : 3 -
4.
MR AS SUPEHIA for Respondent(s) : 5,
Ms. Sachi Mathur, AGP
for Respondent(s) : 6 -
8.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 06/04/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Heard learned Advocate Mr. AH
Desai for applicant, learned Advocate Mr. Bukhari for respondent
NO.1, learned Advocate Mr. Amar D. Mithani for respondents no.3,4,
learned Advocate Mr. Supehia for respondent NO.5 and learned AGP Ms.
Sachi Mathur for respondent No.6.
This application is filed by
applicant Piyush Prabhudas Kapdi making following averments in para
11:
11. It
is submitted that, therefore, interim relief granted in terms of
paragraph 21(C) of the petition may kindly be vacated in view of the
fact that Special Civil Application No. 6230/2004 has been dismissed
vide judgment dated 27.7.2006 at Annexure C wherein the
workman whose prayer for regularization etc. has been upheld by this
Hon’ble Court.
In para 15(A) of this application,
applicant is praying to admit and allowing this application, by
vacating interim relief granted by this Court, in terms of paragraph
21(C),o n 18.1.2005 in Special Civil Application NO.10724/2004; and,
further be pleased to direct the opponent NO.1 original
petitioner of Special Civil Application NO.10724/2004 to execute and
implement the order dated 11/7.1998 passed by the Labour Court,
Junagadh vide exh.22 in ID Complaint NO.53/1998, in the interest of
justice.
Learned Advocate Mr. Desai
appearing for applicant has admitted before this court that in
Special Civil Application No. 10724 of 2004, order was passed by
this Court on 18.1.2005. Said order is, therefore, quoted as under,
being a by-parte order:
‘Leave’
to amend, to incorporate the reason as to why the petition is
filed only on 23.08.2004 challenging the compromise-Exhibit 22
and order dated 11.07.1998, passed by the Labour Court, Junagadh
in terms of the settlement, which is at Annexure ‘C’ to this
petition, and also the grounds, if not elaborately taken for such
challenge. Amendment shall be filed on or before 27.01.2005.
2. This is a petition wherein it is
clear from the record that at the relevant time, i.e. 11.07.1998
the then Chief Officer, entered into a compromise, for which prima
facie he had no power. It is contended on behalf of the
concerned workmen that what was granted to those workmen by virtue
of that compromise was only benefit of regularisation on the basis
of seniority, as and when the vacancy arises in the set up of
the Nagarpalika and therefore there was nothing illegal about
the said compromise. Prima facie, this may appeal to the Court.
But then it is equally important which cannot be ignored that for
the first time these workmen complained about non compliance of the
settlement and the order dated 11.07.1998 by complaint dated
27.11.2003. Whereas, it is the case of one of the workmen
being respondent no.5 herein-Piyush Prabhudas Kapdi, who has filed
affidavit in reply affirmed on 10.12.2004 that as many as 12
persons were regularised during the period ranging from
08.05.1995 to 2001. Admittedly, the persons at serial nos.9,
10, 11 and 12 were regularised subsequent to the date of
compromise, i.e. 11.07.1998. Despite that fact the respondent
workmen chose to remain silent till filing of complaint on
27.11.2003. In view of that the bona fides of the respondent
workmen do not appear to be clear.
3. RULE.
Interim relief in terms of para 21(c).
This order passed by this Court
has been challenged by present applicant by filing Letters Patent
Appeal which has been dismissed by Division Bench of this Court.
Against that, SLP (Civil) was preferred by present applicant which
has also been dismissed by apex court. Therefore, now, prayer to
vacate by-parte interim order passed by this Court which has been
confirmed upto apex court, cannot be granted by this Court,
therefore, request and prayer made in this application is rejected.
Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. Special Civil
Application is adjourned beyond vacation.
(H.K.
Rathod,J.)
Vyas
Top