Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
MCA/2495/2008 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 2495 of 2008
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8385 of 2001
=========================================================
SANKARSINH
C. CHANDER & 13 - Applicant(s)
Versus
GE
LIGHTING (INDIA) LIMITED (ERSTWHILE APAR PVT. LTD.) & 2 -
Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PRABHAKAR UPADYAY for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 14.
NANAVATI ASSOCIATES for Opponent(s) :
1,
PARTY-IN-PERSON for Opponent(s) : 2,
None for Opponent(s) :
3,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 19/09/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. Heard
learned advocate Mr. Prabhakar Upadhyay appearing on behalf of
applicants, learned advocate Mr. K.D. Gandhi for Nanavati Associates
appearing on behalf of opponent No.1 and Party-in-Person Mr. P.
Chidambaram appearing on behalf of opponent No.2. The copy of this
application has already been served to opponent No.3, but, no
appearance is filed on behalf of opponent No.3 till date.
2. This
application is filed by 14 workmen with a prayer to review or recall
the order passed by this Court dated 18th June 2008 in
Special Civil Application No.8385 of 2001.
3. Learned
advocate Mr. Upadhyay raised contention before this Court that
settlement dated 16th June 2008 which has been arrived at
between the parties which has been recorded by this Court is coming
in their way for challenging the settlement dated 16th
June 2008. He also raised contention that settlement is adversely
affected their rights and therefore, it is bad and before settling
the matter, opponent No.2 has not obtained any consent from these
applicants and opponent No.2 has no authority to settle the matters
and settlement is not binding to the present applicant. Therefore,
according to him submission, that when a right of individual workman
is affected, then, consent of individual workman is required to be
taken before entering into any kind of settlement. Therefore, on this
ground, learned advocate Mr. Upadhyay requests to review/recall the
order passed by this Court on 18th June 2008.
4. Learned
advocate Mr. Gandhi appearing on behalf of opponent No.1 and Mr. P.
Chidambaram appearing on behalf of opponent No.2 supported the order
passed by this Court on 18th June 2008.
5. Learned
advocate Mr. Gandhi submitted that settlement has been signed by
representative of Gujarat Mazdur Panchat Mr. P.Chidambaram and on
behalf of opponent No.1 ? Mr.Glen D’souza, Manager IR (GEII)
representing GE and also by learned advocate Mr. Calla for Nanavati
Associates appearing on behalf of Company.
6. I
have considered the order passed by this Court on 18th
June 2008. Earlier, the petition has been preferred by Company being
Special Civil Application No.5418 of 1999, where, notification of the
State Government issued under the provisions of Labour Contract Act
has been challenged and by preferring another petition being Special
Civil Application No.8385 of 2001, Company has challenged the interim
order passed by Industrial Tribunal below Exh.35 dated 14th
August 2001, where, it was directed to Company to treat labour
contract workers being the company employees w.e.f. 13th
July 1999 and to grant all the benefits including pay and other
service benefits. When this matter is taken up for hearing, the
settlement, which was arrived at between the parties, has been placed
on record by both the parties under Section 2(p) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 dated 16th June 2008 and same is
recorded by this Court and both the petitions as well as pending
Reference has been disposed of by this Court.
7. The
dispute is raised by Gujarat Mazdur Panchayat which has been referred
for adjudication to the concerned Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, the
Union was a party to the proceedings as right to request the Court to
dispose of the Reference, where, individual claimants are not the
party to the proceedings. Similarly, in both the petitions i.e. in
Special Civil Application No.5418 of 1999 and Special Civil
Application No.8385 of 2001, Gujarat Mazdur Panchayat was a party
respondent and accordingly, the parties of the proceedings pending
before this Court as well as pending before the Industrial Tribunal
as arrived at the settlement and this Court has recorded it and
therefore, there is no question of any independent workman which is
to be party to the proceedings. Therefore, this court has considered
the settlement made by both the learned advocates including the
representative of the Union and thereafter, it has been recorded. For
that, whatever contentions raised by learned advocate Mr. Upadhyay,
the same cannot be accepted by this Court which is having an
individual grievances of the applicants, this Court cannot
entertained it because they were not party to the proceedings before
the Industrial Tribunal in pending reference and also they were not
party to the proceedings pending before this Court in above referred
two petitions.
8. Therefore,
no case is made out for review/recall the order passed by this Court
on 18th June 2008 as opponent Nos.1 and 2 both are present
before this Court and supported the order passed by this Court as
matter had already been settled between the parties.
9. It
is necessary to note that normally, such review/recall application is
to be filed by parties to the proceedings, not by the outsider who
have no right to file such application.
10. Therefore,
according to my opinion, there is no substance in the present
application. Accordingly, present Misc. Civil Application is
dismissed.
[H.K.
RATHOD, J.]
#Dave
Top