Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/1221/2009 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1221 of 2009
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11533 of 2008
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 6160 of 2009
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1221 of 2009
=========================================
SULOCHANA
A R - Appellant(s)
Versus
CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
SATYAPAL K GUSAIN for
Appellant(s) : 1,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
Date
: 20/01/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD)
Heard
learned counsel for the appellant.
Admittedly,
the respondent company is neither the State nor the authority. The
learned counsel for the appellant emphasizes that it is a person and
a writ can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution to even a
person if any public duty or statutory obligation has not been
performed by such person. In the instant case, the Labour Tribunal
gave an award and the grievance of the appellant is that it has not
been implemented in its true spirit and instead of being reinstated
to the original place, the company has passed an order of
reinstatement by placing the employee who is working at Ahmedabad, in
its Bombay office on a different post coupled with the change of pay
scale also. According to the learned counsel this reinstatement is
not a reinstatement in the eye of law and therefore, a writ should be
issued to the present respondent. The learned single Judge has not
conceded to the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant on
the ground that the respondent is a company, a private limited in its
character and not amenable to writ jurisdiction which is
countenanced.
The
learned counsel places reliance on a decision of Division Bench of
this court in the case of Majdoor
Sabha v. State of Gujarat and others reported in
1992(1) GLH 309 and in that view of the matter, he emphasizes that a
writ should have been issued.
We
have given our thoughtful consideration. We are afraid that in the
instance case, neither there is public duty or statutory obligation
which has not been floated by the respondent company. It being a
private company, it has passed an order of reinstatement by placing
the employee who is working at Ahmedabad in its Bombay office, it
cannot be said that the order has not been given due weightage. If
the appellant has any grievance, he may choose his remedy elsewhere
and not before this Court. We see no force in the appeal. The
appeal is dismissed.
In
view of dismissal of main appeal, civil application does not survive
and is accordingly disposed of.
(BHAGWATI
PRASAD, J)
(BANKIM.N.MEHTA,
J)
shekhar/-
Top