Gujarat High Court
Dena Bank vs Manjulaben D Mochi & on 8 October, 2013
Author: Paresh Upadhyay
Bench: Paresh Upadhyay
DENA BANK....Petitioner(s)V/SMANJULABEN D MOCHI C/SCA/10316/2013 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10316 of 2013 =========================================================== DENA BANK ....Petitioner Versus MANJULABEN D MOCHI & Ors. ....Respondents ================================================================ Appearance: MR.VARUN K.PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner MR PRABHAKAR UPADYAY, ADVOCATE for the Respondent No. 1 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent No. 2 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY Date : 08/10/2013 ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
2. Rule.
Mr.Upadyay wavies service of notice of rule on behalf of the contesting respondent.
3. Challenge in this petition is made to the order of the Labour Court rejecting the application of the present petitioner, whereby review was sought of the award dated 17.08.2011 before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Misc. Application (CGITA) No.6 of 2012, arising out of Reference (CGITA) No.1106 of 2004 (Old Reference (ITC) No.8 of 1999), on the ground of delay, which according to learned advocate for the petitioner was of about 40 days. Learned advocate for the respondent does not dispute this aspect.
4. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, this Court finds that, considering the totality, ends of justice would meet if the petitioner is permitted to have one chance of putting its case on merits before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad.
For the reasons recorded above, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.12.2012 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall pay cost of Rs.5000/- to the respondent workman within a period of one month from today. Since the petitioner is to be heard on merits by the Court below, the award dated 17.08.2011 is quashed and set aside without entering into its merits. Rule made absolute with cost as ordered above.
(PARESH UPADHYAY, J.) M O Bhati Page 2 of 2