Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/3022/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3022 of 2010
=========================================================
SHRI
AMBICA ENTERPRISE - Petitioner(s)
Versus
MAJOOR
MAHAJAN SANGH & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
CL SONI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 09/03/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned advocate Mr. CL Soni on behalf of petitioner.
The
petitioner has challenged order passed by Labour Court exh 51 dated
19/2/2010. This order has been passed by Labour Court, Ahmedabad in
application no. 157/2009, which was filed under provision of Bombay
Industrial Relation Act, 1946 (for short B. I. R. Act ). The
application exh 51 was filed by petitioner request to Court to pass
order of inventory and direct to submit report to Commissioner.
Accordingly, order was passed by Labour Court on 19/1/2010.
Thereafter, application exh 51 has been made by petitioner and
prayer is made that Goods, which was lying with in close mill is
belonging to petitioner and that Goods can not be restrained by
Labour Court by passing order against present petitioner.
Learned
advocate Mr. Soni submitted that Goods belonging to petitioner,
which has been lying for doing job work is not belonging to close
mill. Therefore, that Goods can not be restrained by Labour Court.
He
submitted that decision, which has been considered by Labour Court
reported in 1994 (II) LLJ 303 is not applicable to facts of this
case. He also raised contention before this Court that application
filed by petitioner being a final order for petitioner and it can
not consider to be an interim order.
I
have considered submission made by learned advocate Mr. Soni and I
have perused order passed by Labour Court 19/2/2010 exh 51. It is
made clear that Labour Court has passed this order in pending
proceeding, which has been filed by applicant under provision of B.
I. R. Act, 1946. Against this order, if it is consider to be final
as per submission made by learned advocate Mr. Soni, then remedy u/s
48 appeal is available to petitioner under provision of B. I. R. Act
and if it is consider to be an interim order, then Revision
application is available to petitioner u/s 85 of B. I. R. Act.
According
to my opinion, when under Act, alternative effective remedy is
available where appellate Court and Revisional Court both are having
power to grant interim relief, then such kind of petition
challenging order passed by Labour Court at exh 51 is not
maintainable in law. Only on that ground, present petition is not
entertained by this Court as petitioner is having alternative
effective statutory remedy under provision of B. I. R. Act, 1946.
It depends upon petitioner to decide whether it is a final order or
an interim order. Accordingly, petitioner can approach to Industrial
Court u/s 84 or 85 of B. I. R. Act, 1946. Therefore, present
petition is disposed of by this Court without expressing any opinion
on merits.
Learned
advocate Mr. Soni submitted that submission of final order means
right of petitioner has been finally decided by Labour Court, but
facts remained same even in that case also remedy is available to
petitioner.
(H.K.RATHOD,
J)
asma
Top