Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Shri Yunushbhai Shaikh (Yunusbhai ... vs Orion Appliances Private Limited on 5 September, 2019

Author: Biren Vaishnav

Bench: Biren Vaishnav

         C/SCA/13892/2018                                          ORDER




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

           R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13892 of 2018

==========================================================
SHRI YUNUSHBHAI SHAIKH (YUNUSBHAI MOHAMMAED HANIF SHAIKH)
                           Versus
         ORION APPLIANCES PRIVATE LIMITED & 2 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR K I KAZI(5030) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

                              Date : 05/09/2019

                               ORAL ORDER

1. By way of present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the order under challenge is dated 12.5.2018 passed by the labour Court, Ahmedabad, is an application filed by the petitioner under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2. Perusal of the order under challenge would indicate that the labour Court has refused to entertain the application, on the ground that the dispute as to whether the petitioner is entitled to such amount Page 1 of 2 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 06 04:40:38 IST 2019 C/SCA/13892/2018 ORDER cannot be adjudicated because whether the petitioner is "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Act itself is in doubt, particularly, in view of his designation of working as an Assistant Manager.

3. Mr.K.I. Kazi, learned advocate for the petitioner would therefore request that he would rather prefer to get that dispute decided by filing an appropriate application / by referring the dispute under the appropriate provisions of the Act. The petitioner, if so advised, can do so.

4. On a request made by Mr.K.I. Kazi, learned advocate for the petitioner, this petition is permitted to be withdrawn without opining on the merits of the case.

5. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of as withdrawn.

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) *** VATSAL Page 2 of 2 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 06 04:40:38 IST 2019