Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/1445/2011 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1445 of 2011
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15443 of 2010
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI Sd/-
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Sd/-
======================================
1.
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
NO
2.
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
NO
3.
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
NO
4.
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
NO
5.
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
NO
======================================
TEXTILE
LABOUR ASSOCIATION - Appellant
Versus
OFFICIAL
LIQUIDATOR OF ARUN MILLS LIMITED - Respondent
======================================
Appearance
:
MR
PRABHAKAR UPADYAY for Appellant.
None for
Respondent.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 11/10/2011
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI)
By
way of this Intra-Court Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant –
original petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated
06.12.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil
Application No.15443 of 2010 whereby the learned Single Judge has
dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.
2. We
have heard learned counsel Mr. Prabhakar Upadhyaya appearing for the
appellant.
2.1. The
facts of the case
are that the appellant preferred application under Section 79 of the
Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 before the Labour Court,
Ahmedabad on behalf of one employee, namely, Shri Sarvantsinh
Omkarsinh challenging his order of dismissal dated 30.03.1989. The
said employee was working as a watchman in Ward staff in Arun Mills
Company Limited. The Mills Company submitted its written statement
before the Labour Court in T. Application No.215 of 1989. The
Company approached BIFR under the provisions of SICA. Subsequently,
BIFR submitted report for winding up of the Company before this
Court. Based on the said report, this Court has passed an order
dated 05.07.1993 in Company Petition No.92 of 1993 whereby the Mills
Company was ordered to be wound up by this Court under the provisions
of the Companies Act, 1956. Pursuant to the said order of winding
up, the Official Liquidator had taken over the charge of the assets
of the Company in
liquidation on 29.07.1993.
2.2 The
Managing Director of the Mills Company submitted purshish dated
19.10.1993 in T. Application No.215 of 1989 below Exh.16. The Labour
Court rejected the said application on 15.07.2004. The appellant
thereafter filed restoration application before the Labour Court
being Misc. Application No.88 of 2005 which also came to be rejected
on 07.08.2008 by not condoning the delay preferred in filing the said
Misc. Application.
2.3 Being
aggrieved by the said order of the Labour Court, the appellant filed
Appeal (IC) No.47 of 2008 which also came to be dismissed on
21.06.2010. Hence, the appellant preferred writ petition being
Special Civil Application No.15443 of 2010 which also came to be
dismissed by the Learned Single Judge on 06.12.2010.
3. While
considering the case of the appellant, the learned Single Judge in
the impugned judgment in paragraph 6 has observed as under :-
“6. Having
heard learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and having
considered the orders passed by the Labour Court as well as the
Industrial Tribunal, the Court is of the view that though the
application was pending before the Labour Court in 1989 and though
the Company went into liquidation in 1993, from 1993 to 2004, no
action was taken by the petitioner either by seeking the permission
of this Court under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 or by
requesting the Labour Court to join the Official
Liquidator as party despite the fact that the Managing Director has
already filed purshish to that effect. This gross delay of 11 years
is not explained at all. As a matter of fact, in absence of
permission under Section 446, the petitioner could not have proceeded
with the said T. Application. The Labour Court has, therefore,
rightly rejected the said application and even restoration
application was rightly rejected as it was not filed in time and
delay was not explained at all. The Industrial Tribunal has also
dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the Labour Court.
Since there is concurrent finding of both the Courts below and
looking to the facts of the case, the Court does not think it just
and proper to show any indulgence in the matter. Even otherwise,
this Court while exercising its power under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, does not interfere in the orders passed by the
Courts below and the said order is not in excess of jurisdiction or
not in violation of principles of natural justice.”
4. We
are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single
Judge. No case is made out for interference. The present appeal is
devoid of any merits and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the
present appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
[V. M. SAHAI, J.]
Sd/-
[K. S. JHAVERI, J.]
Savariya
Top