Gujarat High Court
Krupesh C Patel & 5 vs State Of Gujarat & 4 on 22 September, 2014
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi, J.B.Pardiwala
C/LPA/1108/2012 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1108 of 2012
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18289 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?
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 ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
================================================================
KRUPESH C PATEL & 5....Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 4....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR MAHESH BHAVSAR, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 - 6
MR PARTH BHATT, AGP PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR PREMAL R JOSHI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MR UT MISHRA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 5
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 3
================================================================
Page 1 of 3
C/LPA/1108/2012 JUDGMENT
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 22/09/2014
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) The appellants-original petitioners have filed this Letters Patent Appeal calling in question the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 19th July 2012 passed in Special Civil Application No.18289 of 2011. The petitioners had filed the said petition, inter alia, with a prayer for regularization of the services with the respondent No.4 Nagarpalika. The learned Single Judge, however, was of the opinion that in view of the decision of this Court in the case reported in 2004 (2) GLH 692, the appropriate Industrial Court or Labour Court would be the proper forum for deciding the contentions raised by the petitioners.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having perused the documents on record, we are in conformity with the view of the learned Single judge. Before granting the prayers of the petitioners, various disputed questions of facts have to be gone into. The nature of petitioners' initial appointment, whether it is continued for number of years or otherwise, their fulfilling the basic educational qualifications for the posts in question would be some of the factual aspects which would have to be ascertained before the petitioners main prayer for regularization could be Page 2 of 3 C/LPA/1108/2012 JUDGMENT considered one way or the other. That being the position, the learned Judge was correct in opining that the petitioners should avail of the alternative remedy before the Labour Court or the Industrial Court, as the case may be.
In that view of the matter, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) (vjn) Page 3 of 3