Gujarat High Court
Gujarat Alkalies And Chemicals Limited vs Alkalies And Chemicals Ltd Officers ... on 5 July, 2017
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 GUJ 53
Bench: M.R. Shah, B.N. Karia
C/LPA/1271/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1271 of 2016
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15454 of 2015
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11795 of 2016
In LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1271 of 2016
For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Sd/
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA Sd/
=============================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see No
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the No
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as No
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
order made thereunder ?
=============================================
GUJARAT ALKALIES AND CHEMICALS LIMITED....Appellant(s)
Versus
ALKALIES AND CHEMICALS LTD OFFICERS FRIENDS ASSOCIATION &
1....Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MR KS NANAVATI, SR. ADVOCATE for NANAVATI ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATE for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
MR SHALIN MEHTA, SR. ADVOCATE for MR AMRESH N PATEL, CAVEATOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
Date : 05/07/2017
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) [1.0] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 12.09.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Page 1 of 15 HC-NIC Page 1 of 15 Created On Sun Jul 23 13:24:25 IST 2017 C/LPA/1271/2016 CAV JUDGMENT Application No.15454/2015 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said petition preferred by the appellant herein and has confirmed the order passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") by which the learned Tribunal has held the preliminary issue with respect to the maintainability of the reference in favour of the respondent No.1 Union and against the appellant - Management, the original petitioner - Management - Gujarat Alkalies & Chemicals Limited has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
[2.0] The facts leading to the present Letters Patent Appeal in nutshell are as under:
[2.1] That at the instance of the respondent Union / Association a reference was made to the learned Tribunal with respect to the 5 demands contained in reference and in connection with the grievance raised against the office order dated 11.05.2009 introducing revised system of wages with Performance Management System (KPI) for its employees. In the reference the respondent No.1 Union / Association filed its Statement of Claim and the petitioner - appellant Company also filed written statement. In the written statement, the Management raised the preliminary objection contending inter alia that the industrial dispute for which the reference is made is raised for the Officers of the Management8 to Management10 (M8 to M10) categorically working in the Company and since they are performing their duties in supervisory and/or managerial capacity and since their increased salary is ranging from Rs.30,000/ to Rs.60,000/, they are not the workmen within the definition of "workman" under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "ID Act") and therefore, the reference is not tenable. That thereafter the Management filed an application Exh.71 raising such preliminary issue and requested to decide such preliminary issue. It appears that the Union filed an Page 2 of 15 HC-NIC Page 2 of 15 Created On Sun Jul 23 13:24:25 IST 2017 C/LPA/1271/2016 CAV JUDGMENT application Exh.65 for interim relief which the learned Tribunal ordered to be first decided, against which the Management filed a petition before this Court, wherein this Court directed to decide and first consider and decide the preliminary issue. That the learned Single Judge while passing the orders in Special Civil Application No.797/2013 quashed and set aside the orders passed below Exhs.65 and 71 dated 10.12.2012 passed in Reference IT No.106/2011 and directed the learned Tribunal to first consider and decide the preliminary issued raised by the Management. That the respondents are not workmen, and if the learned Tribunal comes to conclusion that the concerned employees are workmen, only then the application Exh.65 of the Union for interim relief may be considered on merits and in accordance with law. It appears that feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.797/2013, the respondent Union preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.997/2013 before the Division Bench of this Court. That the Division Bench disposed of the said Letters Patent Appeal on broad consensus between the learned Advocates for respective parties by maintaining the order passed by the learned Single Judge to decide the preliminary issue as to whether the members of the Union for whom the dispute is raised can be termed as "workmen" or not under the ID Act, first. However, directed that the learned Tribunal shall simultaneously decide the application Exh.65 for interim relief. It appears that thereafter pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of this Court, the learned Tribunal took up Exh.71 raising preliminary issue for hearing. The Union led the evidence, oral as well as documentary and examined one Shri Prakash Vajubhai Joshi, Vice President of the Union and Shri Hiren Upendrabhai Desai, President of the Union. No oral evidence was led on behalf of the Management. However, the Management produced the copies of Key Performance Indicator (KPI) with respect to some of the employees belatedly, though the same were placed subsequently on Page 3 of 15 HC-NIC Page 3 of 15 Created On Sun Jul 23 13:24:25 IST 2017 C/LPA/1271/2016 CAV JUDGMENT record by the Company. Relying upon those KPIs it wsa the case on behalf of the Management that the concerned employees were performing their duties in their supervisory and/or managerial capacity and therefore, they cannot be said to be "workmen" within the definition of section 2(s) of the ID Act.
[2.2] That on appreciation of evidence and by giving cogent reasons the learned Tribunal decided the preliminary issue in favour of the concerned employees / Union and against the Management by holding that the reference before the learned Tribunal for the demands raised shall be maintainable.
[2.3] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Tribunal below Exh.71 on the preliminary issue raised at the instance of the Management, the Management preferred Special Civil Application No.15454/2015 before this Court. That by impugned order the learned Single Judge dismissed the said Special Civil Application, which has given rise to the present Letters Patent Appeal.
[3.0] Shri K.S. Nanavati, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant - Management and Shri Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent No.1 - Union.
[4.0] Shri Nanavati, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Single Judge has materially erred in dismissing the petition and confirming the order passed by the learned Tribunal below Exh.71 holding that for the demand raised with respect to the concerned employees, the reference before the learned Tribunal shall be maintainable.
[4.1] It is further submitted by Shri Nanavati, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that in the facts and circumstances Page 4 of 15 HC-NIC Page 4 of 15 Created On Sun Jul 23 13:24:25 IST 2017 C/LPA/1271/2016 CAV JUDGMENT of the case the learned Single Judge has materially erred in confirming the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal that the concerned employees for whom the demand is raised can be said to be "workmen" within the definition of section 2(s) of the ID Act. It is further submitted by Shri Nanavati, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the learned Single Judge has materially erred in relying upon and/or considering the depositions of the witnesses examined on behalf of the Union who had no personal knowledge and their evidence can be said to be hearsay. Shri Nanavati, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Management has heavily relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.D. Jain vs. Management of State Bank of India and Anr. reported in (1982) 1 SCC 143 as well as in the case of Kalyan Kumar Gogoi vs. Ashutosh Agnihotri and Anr. reported in (2011) 2 SCC 532 in support of his submissions that the evidence led on behalf of the Union was hearsay evidence and therefore, the same was not admissible in evidence. It is further submitted by Shri Nanavati, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that in the present case the learned Single Judge has materially erred in not properly appreciating that the onus to prove that the concerned employees falls under the definition of "workmen" was upon the Union and therefore, when the concerned employees neither stepped into the witness box for examination nor placed on record any tangible evidence in support of his claim, it can be said that the concerned employees / Union has failed to discharge its onus to prove that the concerned employees fall under the definition of "workman". It is submitted that therefore, the learned Single Judge ought not to have confirmed the order passed by the learned Tribunal below Exh.71.
[4.2] It is further submitted that as the onus to prove that the concerned employees fall under the definition of "workman" is upon the concerned Union / employee, the learned Single Judge has materially erred in observing that as the appellant Company has not produced any evidence Page 5 of 15 HC-NIC Page 5 of 15 Created On Sun Jul 23 13:24:25 IST 2017 C/LPA/1271/2016 CAV JUDGMENT in its support and nonproduction of documents of individual employee would not discard the evidence led by the Association.
[4.3] It is further submitted by Shri Nanavati, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that despite the fact that the KPI with respect to some of the employees were placed on record by the Management and infact were on record before the learned Tribunal, the learned Single Judge has materially erred in observing that the copies of such KPI were not placed on record of the reference. It is submitted that the respective KPIs with respect to some of the employees were vital documents / evidence / material to prove that the concerned employees of whom the KPIs were produced were performing their duties in the capacity of supervisory / managerial and therefore, they cannot be termed as "workman".
[4.4] It is further submitted by Shri Nanavati, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the learned Single Judge has failed to deal with the oral arguments canvassed by the Management, with respect to upgradation letters given to some of the employees. It is submitted that it was submitted that there was group of one 340 upgraded employees and another group of 190 direct recruit employees. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has wrongly applied the contents of the Order of upgradation to direct recruit employees also despite the fact that it was the specific case on behalf of the Management that the said Order of upgradation cannot be applied to the directly recruited employees. It is submitted that even with respect to the upgraded employees they were placed in M8 to M10 categories, which are supervisory category. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge materially erred in observing and considering that after upgradation the upgraded employees continue to perform their original duties and that there has been no change in their original duties.
Making above submissions, it is requested to admit / allow the Page 6 of 15 HC-NIC Page 6 of 15 Created On Sun Jul 23 13:24:25 IST 2017 C/LPA/1271/2016 CAV JUDGMENT present Letters Patent Appeal.
[4.5] In the alternative it is submitted by Shri Nanavati, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that as the learned Single Judge in the impugned order has specifically observed that the KPIs are not required to be appreciated in detail at this stage and therefore, it may be suitably observed that question whether concerned employees can be said to be workman or not be kept open to be directed to be considered by the learned Tribunal at the time of deciding the reference.
[5.0] Present Letters Patent Appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri Mehta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Union.
[5.1] It is vehemently submitted by Shri Mehta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Union that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error in deciding the preliminary issue in favour of the Union and against the Management. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in holding that the reference for the demand raised for the concerned employees would be maintainable as the concerned employees can be said to be "workmen" within the definition of section 2(s) of the ID Act. It is submitted that the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal confirmed by the learned Single Judge are on appreciation of evidence and the same cannot be said to be either perverse and/or contrary to the evidence on record. It is submitted that as such the Management did not led any evidence and/or produced any evidence in support of their case that the concerned employees for whom the dispute is raised are performing their duties in the capacity as supervisory and/or managerial. It is submitted that no evidence has been led by the Management in support of their claim that the concerned employees are performing their duties in the capacity as supervisory and/or managerial. It is submitted that therefore, when on appreciation Page 7 of 15 HC-NIC Page 7 of 15 Created On Sun Jul 23 13:24:25 IST 2017 C/LPA/1271/2016 CAV JUDGMENT of evidence led and produced by the Union thereafter when the learned Tribunal has taken the decision, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error. It is submitted that therefore the learned Single Judge is justified in dismissing the petition and confirming the order passed by the learned Tribunal.
[5.2] Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the appellant that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in observing and consequently in considering KPIs produced with respect to some of the employees by observing that copies of such KPIs were not placed on record of the reference is concerned, it is submitted that the entire paragraph as a whole is required to be read. It is submitted that what has been observed by the learned Single Judge is that the copies of such KPIs were not placed on record of the reference, however the same were subsequently placed on record by the Company. It is submitted that as such thereafter the learned Single Judge has considered the KPIs also and has specifically observed that from such KPI, it does not appear that the concerned employees are given any powers to recall or control any service condition of the employees. It is submitted that therefore it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge has not considered at all the KPIs, as sought to be contended on behalf of the appellant.
[5.3] Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the appellant that the deposition of evidence of the concerned witnesses examined on behalf of the Union can be said to be hearsay evidence and therefore, the same was inadmissible in evidence is concerned, it is vehemently submitted by Shri Mehta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Union that as such the initial burden to prove that the concerned employees can be said to be "workmen", has been fulfilled / discharged by the Union, however thereafter it was for the Management to disprove the same by leading cogent evidence with respect to the concerned employees and to establish and prove by leading the cogent evidence that the concerned Page 8 of 15 HC-NIC Page 8 of 15 Created On Sun Jul 23 13:24:25 IST 2017 C/LPA/1271/2016 CAV JUDGMENT employees were performing their duties in their capacity as supervisory / managerial, which the Management has failed. It is submitted that in any case the deposition / evidence of the concerned witnesses cannot be said to be hearsay evidence. It is submitted that as such the concerned witnesses - Vice President and President of the Union have in their evidence / depositions have given the details about the functioning of the plants, the duties performed by the concerned employees in different plants, as regards their shifts, as regards availability of the benefits like allowances and other benefits, with basic pay etc. and as regards their upgradation, with no change in the basic duties of the concerned employees. It is submitted that even the case on behalf of the Management with respect to the upgraded employees also came to be considered by the learned Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal confirmed by the learned Single Judge that even after upgradation there is no change in the basic duties of the concerned employees is on appreciation of evidence. It is submitted that as such thereafter no evidence at all has been led by the Management in support of their case that after upgradation there was change in the basic duties of the concerned employees.
[5.4] It is submitted that therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case, neither the learned Tribunal nor the learned Single Judge has committed any error in dismissing application Exh.71 and in deciding the preliminary issue in favour of the Union and against the Management.
[5.5] Now, so far as the alternative submission made on behalf of the Management to keep the question whether the concerned employees can be said to be "workmen" within the definition of section 2(s) of the ID Act, to be agitated at the time of hearing of the reference is concerned, it is vehemently submitted by Shri Mehta, learned Counsel appearing on Page 9 of 15 HC-NIC Page 9 of 15 Created On Sun Jul 23 13:24:25 IST 2017 C/LPA/1271/2016 CAV JUDGMENT behalf of the Union that once having raised the preliminary issue and thereafter when the parties led the evidence and thereafter when the learned Tribunal has held against the Management on preliminary issue, thereafter it will not be open for the Management to request to keep the said question open to be considered at the time of reference. It is submitted that same would tantamount to permitting the Management to have the second innings. It is submitted that it was the Management who raised the preliminary issue. It is submitted that the findings recorded on preliminary issue are binding to the parties and the same cannot be permitted to be agitated again at the subsequent stage. In support of his above submissions, Shri Mehta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Union has heavily relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kaushalya Devi & Ors. vs. Baijnath Sayal (Deceased) & Ors. reported in AIR 1961 SC 790; D.P. Maheshwari vs. Delhi Administration reported in (1983) 4 SCC 293 and in the case of Bikoba Deora Gaikwad vs. Hirabai Marutirao Ghorgare reported in (2008) 8 SCC 198.
Making above submissions and relying upon above decisions, it is requested to dismiss the present Letters Patent Appeal.
[6.0] Heard learned Counsel appearing for respective parties at length.
At the outset it is required to be noted that the reference was made at the instance of the Union with respect to 5 demands contained in terms of reference in connection with the grievance raised against the office order dated 11.05.2009 of the management introducing revised system of wages with Performance Management System for its employees. That in the said reference the Management submitted the application Exh.71 for raising the preliminary issue contending inter alia that the concerned employees for whom the demand is made and the reference is raised are performing the duties in their capacity as supervisory and/or managerial and therefore, they cannot be said to be Page 10 of 15 HC-NIC Page 10 of 15 Created On Sun Jul 23 13:24:25 IST 2017 C/LPA/1271/2016 CAV JUDGMENT "workmen" within the definition of section 2(s) of the ID Act and therefore, for those employees the reference is not maintainable.
[6.1] That on appreciation of evidence the learned Tribunal has held the preliminary issue in favour of the Union and against the Management. That the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal and the order passed by the learned Tribunal below Exh.71 has been confirmed by the learned Single Judge by giving cogent reasons. Thus, as such there are concurrent findings recorded by both, learned Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge on preliminary issue raised at the instance of the Management and it is held on appreciation of evidence that the reference shall be made maintainable for the demands raised and for the concerned employees.
[6.2] It is required to be noted that as such no evidence has been led by the Management. The Union led the evidence and examined two witnesses viz. Shri Prakash Vajubhai Joshi, Vice President of the Union and Shri Hiren Upendrabhai Desai, President of the Union. Therefore, when it was the case on behalf of the Management that the concerned employees for whom the demand is raised and the reference is made are not "workmen" within the definition of section 2(s) of the ID Act and when it was the case on behalf of the Management that concerned employees are performing their duties in their supervisory and/or managerial capacity, the burden is upon the Management to prove the same by leading cogent evidence, which the Management has failed to discharge.
[6.3] Even assuming for the sake of submission that the onus was upon the Union to prove that the concerned employees were "workmen" in that case also, once the Union has discharged the onus by leading evidence and examining two witnesses, thereafter the burden will be Page 11 of 15 HC-NIC Page 11 of 15 Created On Sun Jul 23 13:24:25 IST 2017 C/LPA/1271/2016 CAV JUDGMENT shifting upon the Management to disprove the same by leading cogent evidence and to prove that the concerned employees were performing their duties in their supervisory and/or managerial capacity. As observed hereinabove the Management has failed to discharge the burden either at the initial stage or even subsequently to prove by leading cogent evidence that the concerned employees were performing their duties in supervisory and/or managerial capacity.
[6.4] It is the case on behalf of the appellant that the evidence led by the Union can be said to be hearsay evidence and therefore, the same is not admissible in evidence is concerned, at the outset it is required to be noted that considering the entire deposition / evidence as a whole the same cannot be said to be hearsay evidence as sought to be contended on behalf of the appellant. The deposition of the aforesaid two witnesses has been dealt with by the learned Single Judge in para 10 of the impugned judgment, which reads as under:
"10. The respondent No.1 Union examined Mr. Prakash Vajubhai Joshi and Shri Hiren Upendrabhai Desai as its witnesses. The first witness is Vice President of respondent No.1 Union and second witness is the President of the Union. They have said in their evidence that they represent the employees working in M8 to M10 category and also employees working in other categories. They have said for themselves in which category they work and have also stated that the concerned employees employed to work as Typists, Clerks, Accountants, Jr. Technicians, Sr. Assistant etc. and about their categorization by the petitioner company in M8 to M10 category. They also referred about the working of the concerned employees in different shifts. They have further stated that after getting stagewise upgradation, for their categorization in M8 to M10, there was no change in the original duties of the concerned employees and that the concerned employees have got no power to take any disciplinary action, or to grant leave, or for placement of the employees to work and that they have got no administrative or managerial powers. They have also stated that the concerned employees have not been given managerial, administrative or supervisory powers for the employees working in different plants or different mechanical departments or in different offices of the company. They have specifically denied that the concerned employees have been performing the duties in any supervisory capacity or in managerial capacity. They themselves and Page 12 of 15 HC-NIC Page 12 of 15 Created On Sun Jul 23 13:24:25 IST 2017 C/LPA/1271/2016 CAV JUDGMENT for the concerned employees have stated that there is no change in their basic duties on account of upgradation made by the company for them. They have further stated that the employees working in plants, which include operation and maintenance of the plants, form joint team and M8 to M10 categories are exparte created by the company only for the purpose of giving upgradation to the employees. In the evidence, the details concerning the concerned employees as to categorization of their works, nature of works performed in different plants, benefits as regards different allowances with basic pay available to the employees are also stated. They have placed on record the upgradation order, wherein it is stated that the employee will continue to perform his existing work allotted by his superior or head of the department and that the other terms and conditions of the service shall remain unchanged. These witnesses are crossexamined by the company, during which they have stated that 340 employees are working at Dahej and Vadodara plants of the company in different departments and their duties are different. They have stated that those employees come as shift in charge in M8 and M9 category. It is further stated that on upgradation, there is no change in the work of the concerned employees. The President of the Union in his cross has stated that he as a President ascertained the duties of the concerned employees by orally talking to them and by knowing from the documents shown by them."
[6.5] As observed hereinabove, even thereafter also the Management has led no evidence to disprove the above and/or to prove by leading cogent evidence that the concerned employees were performing their duties in managerial and/or supervisory capacity. No evidence has been led by the Management to prove that even after upgradation there was change in the duties and that after upgradation their duties were in the supervisory and/or managerial capacity. Even the KPIs which were relied upon by the Management, which were produced on record, but not duly proved as per the Evidence Act have been dealt with and considered by the learned Single Judge. On considering KPIs it is specifically observed by the learned Single Judge that on considering KPIs it appears that for overall better operation of the plants and to achieve their desired target in the production, key functions and responsibilities are defined and therefore, from such KPI, it does not appear that the concerned employees are given any powers to regulate or control the service Page 13 of 15 HC-NIC Page 13 of 15 Created On Sun Jul 23 13:24:25 IST 2017 C/LPA/1271/2016 CAV JUDGMENT conditions of any employee. It is specifically observed by the learned Single Judge that in absence of any such evidence i.e. any powers were given to the concerned employees to regulate or control the service conditions of any employee would not be sufficient at this stage to come to a definite finding that the concerned employees who are around 500 in numbers, being represented by the Union, perform duties in supervisory capacity. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case narrated hereinabove, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge has committed any error in dismissing the petition and confirming the order passed by the learned Tribunal holding the preliminary issue in favour of the Union and against the Management and in holding that for the demands raised by the Union with respect to the concerned employees, the reference is maintainable. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of intracourt appellate jurisdiction.
[6.6] Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the appellant to keep the issue, whether the concerned employees for whom the demand is raised are "workmen" or not, open to be agitated and/or considered at the time of reference is concerned, at the outset it is required to be noted that as such in the present case it was the Management who raised the preliminary issue and invited the findings. That on appreciation of evidence led by the Union, thereafter when the learned Tribunal has taken the decision that the Management has failed to prove by leading cogent evidence that the concerned employees are not "workmen" within the definition of section 2(s) of the ID Act as they are performing their duties in supervisory and/or managerial capacity, thereafter to keep the said question open again to be agitated at the time of reference would be giving a second innings, which is not permissible. The said question cannot be permitted to be reagitated and/or agitated again Page 14 of 15 HC-NIC Page 14 of 15 Created On Sun Jul 23 13:24:25 IST 2017 C/LPA/1271/2016 CAV JUDGMENT and again. If such a course is permitted, in that case, in every case the Management will first raise the preliminary issue and thereafter prolonging the matter will carry the matter to the highest Forum and thereafter will request to keep the question open to be agitated at the time of reference and by the time the concerned employees / workmen would be tired. Once having raised the preliminary issue and thereafter when the parties have led the evidence and thereafter when the learned Tribunal has taken a decision on such preliminary issue, we are of the opinion that thereafter the same cannot be permitted to be reagitated again. Otherwise the purpose and object of deciding the preliminary issue would be frustrated.
[7.0] In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the petition and confirming the order passed by the learned Tribunal below Exh.71. Present Letters Patent Appeal fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11795/2016 In view of dismissal of main Letters Patent Appeal, Civil Application No.11795/2016 also stands dismissed.
Sd/ (M.R. SHAH, J.) Sd/ (B.N. KARIA, J.) Ajay Page 15 of 15 HC-NIC Page 15 of 15 Created On Sun Jul 23 13:24:25 IST 2017