Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Lalitkumar Chhabildas Parmar on 21 March, 2018
Author: K.M.Thaker
Bench: K.M.Thaker
C/SCA/11681/2016 IA ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1 of 2018
IN R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11681 of 2016
==========================================================
LALITKUMAR CHHABILDAS PARMAR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance:
MR RAJESH P MANKAD for the PETITIONER(s) No. MR. NIRAJ ASHAR, AGP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the RESPONDENT(s) No. ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER Date : 21/03/2018 IA ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate for applicant.
2. In view of the fact that the learned advocate for the applicant served copy of this application in advance (9.3.2018) to the office of Government Pleader and having regard to the fact that despite advance service of the application respondent has not filed reply and in light of the fact that when the Court inquired from learned AGP Mr. Ashar about respondent's reply/ objection, he submitted that the respondent no.1 has not provided any instruction or information Page 1 of 6 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 10 23:48:54 IST 2019 C/SCA/11681/2016 IA ORDER as to why the order dated 13.12.2017 passed by this Court is not complied, the Court deems it proper to pass following order:
a. In view of the fact that the copy of present application is served in advance (on 9.3.2018), the Office of learned Government Pleader, Court's Notice (process by the Court) is deemed to have been served.
b. Though the applicant served copy of his application in advance, any reply disputing / denying the averments in the application is not filed. The applicant's assertion have remained uncontroverted.
c. Today also, learned AGP does not have any instruction as regards applicant's statements and as regards the compliance of the order dated 13.12.2017. The said order reads thus:
"Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. Considered the following aspects so far as grant of interim relief is concerned.
The petitioner shall allegedly terminated in the year 2000. He initially approached this Court by filing writ petition instead of raising industrial dispute. The said writ petition came to be dismissed in the year 2011 and thereafter Letters Patent Appeal also came to be dismissed in the year2011. Thereafter, Reference has been made in the year 2014.
Page 2 of 6 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 10 23:48:54 IST 2019
C/SCA/11681/2016 IA ORDER Rule returnable on 26/04/2018. Interim relief in terms of Para 9(C) is granted subject to provision of section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act."
d. On plain reading of the order it emerges that the order granting interim relief is conditional. e. According to the order dated 13.12.2017 the interim relief would, according to order dated 13.12.2017, come in operation only if the condition prescribed by the Court i.e. to comply the requirement/ condition under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, is fulfilled. f. From the record it has emerged that though the respondent in main petition i.e. in SCA No.11681 of 2016 (i.e. the applicant in present application) filed an undertaking on affidavit declaring that he is unemployed and he is not gainfully engaged in any establishment, the petitioner (present respondent) has not complied the condition prescribed vide order dated 13.12.2017.
g. It has also emerged from the record that Page 3 of 6 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 10 23:48:54 IST 2019 C/SCA/11681/2016 IA ORDER though the applicant, in addition to the undertaking on affidavit submitted by the workman, also forwarded two reminders to the
respondents (after the Court passed order dated 13.12.2017) with request to the respondent to comply the condition to pay wages in accordance with Section 17B of the Act, the petitioner has not taken steps to comply the condition. h. It is the case of the applicant that:
(i) Despite the order dated 13.12.2017, the respondent has not complied the said order; and that
(ii) Though he (i.e. the workman) discharged his obligation by filing undertaking on affidavit, the respondent has not taken any steps to comply the requirement /condition under Section 17B and/ or order dated 13.12.2017; and that
(iii) despite two reminders (i.e. 20.12.2017 and 2.2.2018) the respondent has not taken any action to comply the requirement under Section 17B and/ or the order dated 13.12.2017. Page 4 of 6 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 10 23:48:54 IST 2019
C/SCA/11681/2016 IA ORDER 3. As mentioned above, the Court granted conditional interim relief, the interim relief
would operate only on compliance of the condition prescribed by the order dated 13.12.2017.
4. Meaning thereby, if the respondent does not comply the condition prescribed by the Court vide order dated 13.12.2017 as well as statutory requirement prescribed by virtue of Section 17B then, the order dated 13.12.2017 and the interim relief granted thereby, would not operate/ not come in operation and its benefit/ effect would not be available to the respondent. Thus, in present case the said order has not come in operation and it does not operate.
5. Therefore the application is disposed with the declaration that the order granting interim relief has not come into operation and the relief granted by order dated 13.12.2017 is not available to the respondent, because the respondent have not complied the condition. Page 5 of 6 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 10 23:48:54 IST 2019
C/SCA/11681/2016 IA ORDER
6. With aforesaid observation, the application is disposed of.
(K.M.THAKER, J) saj Page 6 of 6 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 10 23:48:54 IST 2019