Gujarat High Court High Court

Registrar vs Manish on 18 February, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Registrar vs Manish on 18 February, 2011
Author: V. M. G.B.Shah,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

LPA/1949/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1949 of 2010
 

In


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 6589 of 2010
 

In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11288 of 2008
 

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

REGISTRAR
& 1 - Appellant(s)
 

Versus
 

MANISH
BABULAL GOHIL - Respondent(s)
 

========================================= 
Appearance
: 
MR RC
KAKKAD for
Appellant(s) : 1 - 2. 
MR TR MISHRA for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
		
	
	 
		 
			 

   
			
		
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 18/02/2011 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)

1. We
have heard Mr R.C. Kakkad, learned counsel for the appellants and
Mr T R Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. With
the consent of the counsel for the parties, we have taken this appeal
for final disposal.

3. This
appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated
28.07.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Application
No. 6589 of 2010 by which the learned Single Judge has directed that
during the pendency of the appeal, the respondent be paid regular
wages with effect from 1.8.2010 and arrears of wages as prayed by him
in prayer clause 3(B) and allowed the application in terms of para
3 (A) and 3 (B).

4. It
is not disputed that the Special Civil Application is still pending
challenging the award. During the pendency of the petition, by the
impugned order, the learned Single Judge has granted interim relief
to the petitioner which could have been granted only as a final
relief. Further, the respondents have complied with the provisions
of 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and had reinstated the
respondent and are paying him last pay drawn by him. In this view
of the matter, since by way of interim relief, final relief has been
granted, the impugned order cannot be maintained.

5. In
the result, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order dated
28.7.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge is quashed and set
aside. We request the learned Single Judge to decide the Special
Civil Application No. 11288 of 2008 at the earliest subject to His
Lordship’s convenience.

[V.

M. SAHAI, J.]

[G.

B. SHAH, J.]

msp

   

Top