Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Rule Served For on 12 October, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Rule Served For on 12 October, 2011
Author: Anil R. Dave,
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD



     SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 8351 of 2000




     For Approval and Signature:



              Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE


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

1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO
to see the judgements?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO
of the judgement?

4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India, 1950 of any OJJJJ

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO
1 to 5 No

————————————————————–
RATHOD RANJITBHAI HIRABHAI
Versus
MAHALAXMI INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION

————————————————————–
Appearance:

MR AM PAREKH for Petitioners
RULE SERVED for Respondent No. 1, 4, 5
MR RAJNI H MEHTA for Respondent No. 3

————————————————————–

CORAM : MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE

Date of decision: 01/03/2001

ORAL JUDGEMENT
I have heard the learned advocates and have also
perused the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of
respondent No. 3

2.It has been submitted by the learned advocates
that petitioners Nos. 1 to 7 are workmen of respondent
No. 1, petitioners Nos. 8 to 14 are workmen of
respondent No. 2 and petitioners Nos. 15 and 16 are
workmen of respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 3 has
given a contract to respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and,
therefore, the workmen of the said respondents are
working at the establishment of respondent No. 3.

3.It has been submitted by learned advocate Shri
Mehta appearing for respondent No. 3 that the contract
entered into by respondent No. 1 with respondent No. 3
has come to an end and therefore petitioners Nos. 1 to 7
are not performing their duties at the establishment of
respondent No. 3 at present.

4.Learned advocate Shri Parekh has submitted that
services of the petitioners are likely to be terminated
without following legal procedure and, therefore, the
petitioners would like to approach the concerned
authority for protection of their legal rights. It has
been submitted by him that the petitioners shall raise
industrial dispute before the concerned authority within
one week from today.

5.In the circumstances, it is directed that the
petitioners shall approach the conciliation officer with
regard to the demands which are subject-matter of this
petition. The Conciliation Officer shall submit an
appropriate report within three months from the date of
initiation of the conciliation proceedings. He shall
submit the report after considering the rival contentions
and objections. If failure report is submitted by the
Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government shall
take a decision by passing an appropriate order and shall
take action in accordance with law with regard to making
reference.

6.It is directed that in the meantime, services of
the petitioners shall not be terminated except in
accordance with law.

7.In view of the above directions given by this
court, learned advocate Shri Parekh seeks permission to
withdraw this petition. Permission for withdrawal is
granted. The petition stands disposed of as withdrawn.
Ad-interim relief stands vacated. Rule is discharged
with no order as to costs.

Direct service is permitted.

(A.R. Dave, J.)

(hn)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *