{"id":194772,"date":"2011-03-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-for-on-31-march-2011"},"modified":"2017-07-05T11:10:39","modified_gmt":"2017-07-05T05:40:39","slug":"appearance-vs-for-on-31-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-for-on-31-march-2011","title":{"rendered":"Appearance : vs For on 31 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Appearance : vs For on 31 March, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya,&Nbsp;Mr.Justice J.B.Pardiwala,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nLPA\/1198\/2009\t 13\/ 13\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nLETTERS\nPATENT APPEAL No. 1198 of 2009\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 7819 of 2008\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nTHE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA\n \n \n=================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? -\n\t\t\tYES\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ? - YES\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? - NO \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ? - NO\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ? - NO\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=================================================\n\n\n \n\nMANAGER,\nNAAZ CINEMA \n\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nVASANTBEN\nRAMESHBHAI GHUMADIYA\n \n\nW\/D\nOF RAMESHBHAI RAIJIBHAI GHUMADIYA\n \n\n=================================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nJV JAPEE for Appellant(s) : 1, \nNOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) :\n1, \n================================================= \n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tTHE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n:  31\/03\/2011 \n\n \n\nCAV\nJUDGMENT \n<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)<\/p>\n
The
\n\tappellant original petitioner by way of this appeal under Clause 15
\n\tof the Letters Patent calls in question the legality, validity and
\n\tpropriety of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 18th
\n\tJune 2008 in Special Civil Application No.7819 of 2008 wherein the
\n\tlearned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the
\n\tappellant challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, Nadiad
\n\tdated 4th December 2007 under the Industrial Disputes
\n\tAct, 1947.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tbrief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal can be
\n\tsummarised as under:-\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tappellant – original petitioner is engaged in the business of
\n\trunning a cinema known as Naaz Cinema in Kheda Town, Taluka
\n\tMehmdavad, District Kheda.  The deceased husband of the respondent
\n\traised an industrial dispute against the appellant as his services
\n\twere illegally terminated with effect from 1st May 1983.
\n\t The deceased workman prayed for reinstatement to his original post
\n\twith continuity of service and full back-wages.  The industrial
\n\tdispute was referred to the Labour Court, Nadiad vide Reference
\n\t(LCN) No.1080 of 1983.  On 15th June 1998 the Labour
\n\tCourt, Nadiad passed an award directing reinstatement of the
\n\tdeceased workman to his original post with continuity of service and
\n\t75% of the back-wages from the date of termination till 16th
\n\tJune 1992. The deceased workman preferred Recovery Application
\n\tNo.385 of 1999 under Section 33(C)(1) of the Industrial Disputes
\n\tAct, 1947 (“I.D. Act”, for short) to recover an amount
\n\tof Rs.68,885.93 with 18% interest towards outstanding dues of the
\n\tback-wages, bonus, gratuity and leave encashment.  It appears from
\n\tthe record that during the pendency of Recovery Application No.385
\n\tof 1999 deceased workman preferred Payment of Wages Application
\n\tNo.13 of 1999 before the Payment of Wages Authority in respect of
\n\tthe same claim. The record reveals that Recovery Application No.395
\n\tof 1999 was rejected for non prosecution on 14th February
\n\t2002 and 11th September 2006 the Payment of Wages
\n\tAuthority rejected the Application No.13 of 1999 on the ground that
\n\tthe application was not maintainable for the claims made by the
\n\tdeceased workman for the recovery of the amount as per the award.  A
\n\tfresh Recovery Application No.80 of 2006 was filed before the Labour
\n\tCourt, Nadiad under Section 33C(1) of the Act claiming the
\n\toutstanding back-wages of Rs.39,486.03 and leave encashment amount
\n\tof Rs.1,920.00 along with 18% interest.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tLabour Court, Nadiad vide order dated 4.12.2007 allowed the Recovery
\n\tApplication holding that the respondent was entitled to get an
\n\tamount of Rs.1,26,863 as claimed in the Recovery Application and
\n\tinterest of Rs.1,06,567  with costs of Rs.300\/-.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis this order dated 4.12.2007 passed by the Labour Court, Nadiad
\n\tallowing Recovery Application No.80 of 2006 under Section 33C(1) of
\n\tthe Act which was made subject matter of challenge before the
\n\tlearned Single Judge by way of Special Civil Application No.7819 of
\n\t2008.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tdeserves to be noted that what was challenged by the appellant –
\n\toriginal petitioner is the order passed by the Labour Court, Nadiad
\n\tin Recovery Application based on the substantial award passed by the
\n\tLabour Court way back on 16th June 1998.   At no point of
\n\ttime the said award was challenged by the appellant-original
\n\tpetitioner.   Even as on today it remains unchallenged.  It is only
\n\tbecause of requisite amount as ordered to be paid by way of award
\n\twas not paid that the respondent had to prefer recovery
\n\tapplications. While adjudicating the recovery application the Labour
\n\tCourt functions substantially as an executing court.  We take notice
\n\tof the fact that from 1983 onwards this litigation is being pursued
\n\tby the appellant and the workman without reaping the fruits of award
\n\tpassed by the labour court died.  Even after the death of the
\n\tworkman, they did not spare the helpless widow and continued with
\n\tthe litigation.  The record reveals that she has been made to run
\n\tfrom pillar to post.  We also take notice of the fact that she has
\n\tnot been able to appear before us though served and the reason
\n\tappears to be quite obvious.    A poor widow would not be able to
\n\tmeet with the expenses which she would have incurred if she appears
\n\tby engaging a lawyer.  In this background, we now consider as to
\n\twhether the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the petition
\n\tor not.\n<\/p>\n
Before
\n\tthe learned Single Judge the appellant-original petitioner put
\n\tforward three principal contentions.   They are as under:-\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tLabour Court being an executing court has no jurisdiction to grant
\n\tinterest.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tLabour Court has not condoned the delay as no prayer is made by the
\n\tworkman though the application filed under Section 33(C)(1) of the
\n\tID Act was filed after a period of one year.\n<\/p>\n
Leave
\n\tencashment claimed by the workman in recovery application was
\n\tcovered by the third schedule and not second schedule and therefore
\n\tthe labour court has no jurisdiction to grant such amount.\n<\/p>\n
Having
\n\tgone through the exhaustive judgment delivered by the learned Single
\n\tJudge on all three counts, we are of the opinion that the learned
\n\tSingle Judge has not committed any error, much less an error of law
\n\twhich would warrant interference in this appeal under Clause 15 of
\n\tthe Letters Patent.\n<\/p>\n
So
\n\tfar as the first contention as regards interest is concerned,
\n\tlearned counsel for the appellant – original petitioner has
\n\trelied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of  State
\n\tof Punjab v. Harvinder Singh<\/a> (2008) 3 SCC 394.   He has relied
\n\tupon this judgment to make good his contention that the executing
\n\tcourt does not have power to award interest if not mentioned in the
\n\tdecree.  We take notice of the fact that in this judgment the Apex
\n\tCourt was dealing with Sections 47 and 34 and Order 21 Rule 1 of the
\n\tCivil Procedure Code.  This judgment would not be of any help to the
\n\tappellant and would not be applicable to the provisions of
\n\tIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947.  The learned Single Judge, therefore,
\n\trightly negatived this contention by holding that the provisions of
\n\tOrder 21 of the Civil Procedure Code are not applicable to the
\n\tproceedings of the Labour Court.  The learned Single Judge in
\n\tparagraph 30 of the judgment has held as under:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“30.  ……\n<\/p>\n
\tAccordingly, that application was rejected on 11th
\n\tSeptember 2006 by the Payment of Wages Authority. Thereafter, a
\n\trecovery application No.80 of 2006 was filed by respondent workman
\n\ton 16th October 2006. The Labour Court has granted 75%
\n\tbackwages for the period from 1st May 1983 to 16th
\n\tSeptember 1994. The date of award is 15th June 1998. The
\n\tdue and undisputed amount is not paid by employer without any valid
\n\tjustification for a period of 9 years and 4 months. Therefore, this
\n\tmuch amount is utilized by employer or earned the interest, then, on
\n\tthe principles of restitution, Labour Court has rightly exercised
\n\tequitable jurisdiction in granting interest in favour of respondent
\n\tworkman. The Labour Court has jurisdiction under Section 33C to
\n\tdecide, if any question arise as to the amount of money due or being
\n\tan incidental power or ancillary power which give an equitable
\n\tjurisdiction to Labour Court in case of unnecessary delayed in due
\n\tpayment without justification, then, Labour Court can grant interest
\n\tupon such amount. The Labour Court is having wide power if satisfied
\n\tthat due and undisputed amount of the workman withheld by employer
\n\twithout justification, then, Labour Court has certainly power to
\n\tgrant interest upon due amount.”\n<\/p>\n
We
\n\tare in complete agreement with the view which has been taken by the
\n\tlearned Single Judge and which is in consonance with the objects of
\n\tsocial welfare legislation like ID Act.  We are of the opinion that
\n\twhile answering this issue as regards awarding of interest the
\n\tlearned Single Judge has kept in mind that that Industrial Disputes
\n\tAct and other similar legislative instruments are social welfare
\n\tlegislations and the same are required to be interpreted keeping in
\n\tmind the goals set out in the preamble of the Constitution and the
\n\tprovisions contained in Part-IV thereof in general and Articles 38,
\n\t39(a), 43, 43A in particular which mandate that the State should
\n\tsecure a social order for the promotion of the welfare of the
\n\tpeople, ensure equality between men and women, equitable
\n\tdistribution of material resources of the community to subserve the
\n\tcommon good and also ensure that the workers get their dues.\n<\/p>\n
As
\n\tregards the second contention that the application was filed after a
\n\tperiod of one year and that too without any prayer for condonation
\n\tof delay and without condoning the delay the labour court ought not
\n\tto have adjudicated the application under Section 33(C)(1) of the
\n\tI.D. Act, the learned Single Judge has taken the view that in
\n\tpreferring an application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act no
\n\tlimitation has been prescribed by the statute.  In the absence of
\n\tany statutory provisions providing for limitation for making an
\n\tapplication of the under Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act, the
\n\tapplication of the workman cannot be said to be time-barred. On this
\n\tground also we are in complete agreement with the finding recorded
\n\tby the learned Single Judge.\n<\/p>\n
As
\n\tregards third contention that the leave encashment claimed and
\n\tawarded in recovery application is governed by the third Schedule
\n\tand not by the Second Schedule and therefore the Labour Court has no
\n\tjurisdiction  to grant such amount is also devoid of any merits.
\n\tThe learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the two
\n\tnotifications issued by the Labour and Employment Department dated
\n\t21st April 1982.  Firstly, while answering this
\n\tcontention, the learned Single Judge took notice of the fact that
\n\tthis contention was never raised by the original petitioner before
\n\tthe Labour Court and the learned Single Judge has also found that
\n\tthe said contention is not even taken in the memo of the petition
\n\talso.   However, the learned Single Judge took pains to consider
\n\tthis contention and ultimately has held that two notifications which
\n\thave been referred in the judgment of the learned Single Judge at
\n\tpage 27 and 28 is a clear answer to the contention of the appellant
\n\tthat from 1982 onwards the power has been delegated to the Labour
\n\tCourt upon appropriate Government while exercising the power under
\n\tSection 39 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.   The learned
\n\tSingle Judge has further held that considering the definite
\n\tdefinition of wages where except bonus and contribution paid or
\n\tpayable to the pension fund or provident fund or for the benefit of
\n\tthe workman for the time being in force and amount of gratuity is
\n\tnot included in the definition payment, but except that all kinds of
\n\tallowances and service benefits including travelling concession and
\n\tcommissions are covered by the definition of wages given in Section
\n\t2(rr) of the I.D. Act, 1947 meaning thereby all kinds of
\n\tremuneration  being covered in definition of wages which includes a
\n\tbenefit of leave encashment and therefore the workman was justified
\n\tin claiming it as part of back-wages.\n<\/p>\n
We
\n\tare in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the learned
\n\tSingle Judge on all counts.  As a matter of fact, we deem it fit and
\n\tproper to state in our judgment the message of the Supreme Court
\n\twhile dealing with the matter under the Industrial Disputes Act,
\n\t1947 and other similar legislative instruments, which are social
\n\twelfare legislations.  In a recent pronouncement of the Supreme
\n\tCourt in the matter of  Harjinder Sing v. Punjab State Warehousing
\n\tCorporation (2010) 3 SCC 192 the Honourable Supreme Court in
\n\tparagraphs 17, 18, 19, 26, 27, 28 and 29 has held as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“17.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\tBefore concluding, we consider it necessary to observe that while
\n\t\t\texercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and\/or 227 of the
\n\t\t\tConstitution in matters like the present one, the High Courts are
\n\t\t\tduty-bound to keep in mind that the\/Industrial Disputes Act and
\n\t\t\tother similar legislative instruments are social welfare
\n\t\t\tlegislations and the same are required to be interpreted keeping
\n\t\t\tin view the goals set out in the preamble of the Constitution and
\n\t\t\tthe provisions contained in Part IV thereof in general and
\n\t\t\tArticles 38, 39(a) to (e), 43 and 43-A in particular, which
\n\t\t\tmandate that the State should secure a social order for the
\n\t\t\tpromotion of welfare of the people, ensure equality between men
\n\t\t\tand women and equitable distribution of material resources of the
\n\t\t\tcommunity to subserve the common good and also ensure that the
\n\t\t\tworkers get their dues. More than 41 years ago, Gajendragadkar,
\n\t\t\tJ., opined that “the concept of social and economic justice
\n\t\t\tis a living concept of revolutionary import; it gives sustenance
\n\t\t\tto the rule of law and meaning and significance to the ideal of
\n\t\t\twelfare State” – State of Mysore v. Worker of Gold Mines, AIR<\/a>
\n\t\t\t1958 SC 923.”\n<\/p>\n
“18.\tIn Y.A. Mamarde v.\n<\/p>\n
Authority under the Minimum Wages Act (1972) 2 SCC 108 : (AIR 1972 SC
\n1721), this Court, while interpreting the provisions of Minimum Wages
\nAct, 1948, observed :\n<\/p>\n
“The
\n\t\t\t\tanxiety on the part of the society for improving the general
\n\t\t\t\teconomic condition of some of its less favoured members appears
\n\t\t\t\tto be in supersession of the old principle of absolute freedom of
\n\t\t\t\tcontract and the doctrine of laissez faire and in recognition of
\n\t\t\t\tthe new principles of social welfare and common good. Prior to
\n\t\t\t\tour Constitution this principle was advocated by the movement for
\n\t\t\t\tliberal employment in civilised countries and the Act which is a
\n\t\t\t\tpre-constitution measure was the offspring of that movement.
\n\t\t\t\tUnder our present Constitution the State is now expressly
\n\t\t\t\tdirected to endeavour to secure to all workers (whether
\n\t\t\t\tagricultural, industrial or otherwise) not only bare physical
\n\t\t\t\tsubsistence but a living wage and conditions of work ensuring a
\n\t\t\t\tdecent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure. This
\n\t\t\t\tDirective Principle of State Policy being conducive to the
\n\t\t\t\tgeneral interest of the nation as a whole, merely lays down the
\n\t\t\t\tfoundation for appropriate social structure in which the labour
\n\t\t\t\twill find its place of dignity, legitimately due to it in lieu of
\n\t\t\t\tits contribution to the progress of national economic
\n\t\t\t\tprosperity.”\n<\/p>\n
“19.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\tThe preamble and various Articles contained in Part IV of the
\n\t\t\tConstitution promote social justice so that life of every
\n\t\t\tindividual becomes meaningful and he is able to live with human
\n\t\t\tdignity. The concept of social justice engrafted in the
\n\t\t\tConstitution consists of diverse principles essentially for the
\n\t\t\torderly growth and development of personality of every citizen.
\n\t\t\tSocial justice is thus an integral part of justice in the generic
\n\t\t\tsense. Justice is the genus, of which social justice is one of its
\n\t\t\tspecies. Social justice is a dynamic devise to mitigate the
\n\t\t\tsufferings of the poor, weak, dalits, tribals and deprived
\n\t\t\tsections of the society and to elevate them to the level of
\n\t\t\tequality to live a life with dignity of person. In other words,
\n\t\t\tthe aim of social justice is to attain substantial degree of
\n\t\t\tsocial, economic and political equality, which is the legitimate
\n\t\t\texpectation of every section of the society. In a developing
\n\t\t\tsociety like ours which is full of unbridgeable and ever widening
\n\t\t\tgaps of inequality in status and of opportunity, law is a catalyst
\n\t\t\tto reach the ladder of justice. The philosophy of welfare State
\n\t\t\tand social justice is amply reflected in large number of judgments
\n\t\t\tof this Court, various High Courts, National and State Industrial
\n\t\t\tTribunals involving interpretation of the provisions of the
\n\t\t\tIndustrial Disputes Act, Indian Factories Act, Payment of Wages
\n\t\t\tAct, Minimum Wages Act, Payment of Bonus Act, Workmen’s
\n\t\t\tCompensation Act, the Employees’ State Insurance Act, the
\n\t\t\tEmployees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act and
\n\t\t\tthe Shops and Commercial Establishments Act enacted by different
\n\t\t\tStates.”\n<\/p>\n
“26. Judges of the last Court
\nin the largest democracy of the world have a duty and the basic duty
\nis to articulate the Constitutional goal which has found such an
\neloquent utterance in the Preamble. If we look at our Preamble, which
\nhas been recognised, a part of the Constitution in His Holiness
\nKesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and others vs. State of Kerela and
\nanother [AIR 1973 SC 1461], we can discern that as divided in three
\nparts. The first part is a declaration whereby people of India
\nadopted and gave to themselves the Constitution. The second part is a
\nresolution whereby people of India solemnly resolved to constitute
\nIndia into a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic.
\nHowever, the most vital part is the promise and the promise is to
\nsecure to all its citizens :\n<\/p>\n
“JUSTICE, social, economic
\nand political;\n<\/p>\n
LIBERTY of thought, expression,
\nbelief, faith and worship;\n<\/p>\n
EQUALITY of status and of
\nopportunity;\n<\/p>\n
And to promote among them all<\/p>\n
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of
\nthe individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;”\n<\/p>\n
[See Justice R.C. Lahoti, Preamble\n<\/p>\n
– The Spirit and backbone of the Constitution of India, Anundoram
\nBarooah Law Lectures, Seventh Series, Eastern Book Company, 2004, at
\np. 3].”\n<\/p>\n
“27. Judges and specially the
\nJudges of the highest Court have a vital role to ensure that the
\npromise is fulfilled. If the Judges fail to discharge their duty in
\nmaking an effort to make the Preambular promise a reality, they fail
\nto uphold and abide by the Constitution which is their oath of
\noffice. In my humble opinion, this has to be put as high as that and
\nshould be equated with the conscience of this Court.”\n<\/p>\n
“28. As early as in 1956, in
\na Constitution Bench judgment dealing with an Article 32 petition,
\nJustice Vivian Bose, while interpreting the Article 14 of the
\nConstitution, posed the following question :\n<\/p>\n
“After all, for whose benefit
\nwas the Constitution enacted?”\n<\/p>\n
[Bidi Supply Co. vs. Union of India
\nand others<\/a>, AIR 1956 SC 479 at Para 23, pg. 487]”\n<\/p>\n
“29. Having posed the.\n<\/p>\n
question, the Learned Judge answered the same in his inimitable words
\nand which I may quote :\n<\/p>\n
“I am clear that the
\nConstitution is not for the exclusive benefit of Governments and
\nStates; it is not only for lawyers and politicians and officials and
\nthose highly placed. It also exists for the common man, for the poor
\nand the humble, for those who have businesses at stake, for the
\n“butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker”. It lays
\ndown for this land a “rule of law” as understood in the
\nfree democracies of the world. It constitutes India into a Sovereign
\nDemocratic Republic and guarantees in every page rights and freedom
\nto the individual side by side and consistent with the overriding
\n‘power of the State to act for the common good of all.”\n<\/p>\n
[Ibid, Emphasis supplied)”\n<\/p>\n
For
\n\tthe reasons recorded above and more particularly keeping in mind
\n\tthat this Court has a duty to interpret statutes with social welfare
\n\tbenefits in such a way as to further the statutory goal, the appeal
\n\tdeserves to be dismissed.  The same is hereby dismissed with costs
\n\tof Rs.10,000\/- imposed upon the appellant – original
\n\tpetitioner to be paid to the widow of the deceased workman i.e.
\n\trespondent herein either by cash or by cheque and produce the
\n\treceipt of the same with the Registry of this Court within a period
\n\tof 15 days from today.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(S.J. Mukhopadhaya, CJ.)        <\/p>\n
(J.B.Pardiwala, J.) <\/p>\n
*mohd<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Appearance : vs For on 31 March, 2011 Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya,&Nbsp;Mr.Justice J.B.Pardiwala,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print LPA\/1198\/2009 13\/ 13 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1198 of 2009 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7819 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-194772","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAppearance : vs For on 31 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-for-on-31-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Appearance : vs For on 31 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-for-on-31-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-05T05:40:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-for-on-31-march-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-for-on-31-march-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Appearance : vs For on 31 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-05T05:40:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-for-on-31-march-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3129,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-for-on-31-march-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-for-on-31-march-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-for-on-31-march-2011\",\"name\":\"Appearance : vs For on 31 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-05T05:40:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-for-on-31-march-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-for-on-31-march-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-for-on-31-march-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Appearance : vs For on 31 March, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Appearance : vs For on 31 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-for-on-31-march-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Appearance : vs For on 31 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-for-on-31-march-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-05T05:40:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-for-on-31-march-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-for-on-31-march-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Appearance : vs For on 31 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-05T05:40:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-for-on-31-march-2011"},"wordCount":3129,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-for-on-31-march-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-for-on-31-march-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-for-on-31-march-2011","name":"Appearance : vs For on 31 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-05T05:40:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-for-on-31-march-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-for-on-31-march-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-for-on-31-march-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Appearance : vs For on 31 March, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/194772","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=194772"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/194772\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=194772"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=194772"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=194772"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}