Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/8742/2011 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8742 of 2011
===============================================================
VALSAD
DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD - Petitioner(s)
Versus
CONCILIATION
OFFICER & ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR & 1 -
Respondent(s)
==============================================================
Appearance :
MR
AK CLERK for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR RINDANI, ASST GOVERNMENT
PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR MUKUL SINHA for Respondent(s) :
2,
==============================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 11/10/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. Present
petition is filed by ‘Valsad District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd’
challenging order dated 11/04/2011 passed by respondent No.1 –
the Conciliation Officer & Assistant Commissioner of Labour,
Valsad in Conciliation Case No.2 of 2011, which is produced at
Annexure – Q (page No.146) whereby the respondent No.1 has
declared the workmen mentioned in the operative part of the order
(page No.149) to be ‘the protected workman’ for year 2010-11 which
has come to an end on 30/09/2011. Therefore, due to lapse of time
the matter has become infructuous.
1.1 The
learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that in this order
respondent No.1 has also recorded that the respondent – Union is
having membership of 145 out of 195 workmen.
1.1 Learned
Advocate for the petitioner submitted that besides that respondent
No.1 has ignored the other Union being ‘Valsad District Bank
Karmachari Mandal’ which had written a letter to respondent No.1 on
07/03/2011 which was posted by Registered Post A.D. on 08/03/2011
which is stated to have been received by office of respondent No.1 on
09/03/2011, after the hearing was concluded on 08/03/2011. The
learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.1
has recorded the aforesaid finding about the membership of the
respondent – Union, in absence of the present petitioner.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that it is for these
reasons that the order under challenge in this petition be not
allowed to be cited as precedent in any other proceedings.
2. Learned
Advocate Mr.Mankad for the respondent – Union submitted that
now that the petition has become infructuous nothing further is
required to be done and the matter be disposed of as ‘infructuous’ .
3. Taking
into consideration the submissions made by the learned Advocate for
the petitioner, it is deemed proper to direct that in view of the
aforesaid facts the order impugned in this petition be not cited as
precedent in any other proceedings.
4. With
this direction the petition is disposed of as having become
infructuous.
(RAVI
R TRIPATHI, J.)
sompura
Top