Gujarat High Court
For Approval And Signature: Sd/ vs Nddb on 17 January, 2017
Author: K.M.Thaker
Bench: K.M.Thaker
C/SCA/13383/2008 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13383 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: Sd/-
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed Yes
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of No
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of No
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
YOGESH KANUBHAI PATHAK....Petitioner(s)
Versus
NDDB....Respondent(s)
Appearance:
MR MAYANK DESAI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR NILESH M SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DC DAVE, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date : 17/01/2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is listed at serial No. 14 in todays' cause list for final hearing. The cause list reflects names of Mr. Page 1 HC-NIC Page 1 of 7 Created On Sat Aug 12 12:19:49 IST 2017 C/SCA/13383/2008 JUDGMENT Mayank Desai and Mr. Nilesh Shah, as an advocates for the petitioner.
2. When the petition is called out and taken up for hearing, learned advocates for the petitioner are not present.
3. Mr. Dave, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the respondent National Dairy Development Board ("NDDB" for short) is present.
4. In present petition the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that:-
"7(b) Set aside and reverse the Impugned Order - Part II - below application dated 13.03.03 & 10.01.06, Ex. 37 & 52 (common order) with a direction to the Learned Presiding Officer Labour Court in Ref. LCV 325/91 to discard the W/S (Exh.7) from the Record of the case and permit the petitioner to lead full-fledged evidence on merits without reserving the same at the enquiry stage as held by H'ble Labour Court vide it's order dated 06.02.08 below application at Ex.86- impugned order- part-I"
5. Thus, part-II of the order passed by learned Labour Court below Exh. 37 and 52 (i.e. applications dated 13.3.2003 and 10.1.2006) passed in Reference LCV No. 325 of 1991 is challenged in present petition.
Page 2
HC-NIC Page 2 of 7 Created On Sat Aug 12 12:19:49 IST 2017
C/SCA/13383/2008 JUDGMENT
5.1 By common order dated 19.3.2008 passed below Exh. 37 and Exh. 52 learned Labour Court rejected the said two applications.
5.2 Against said common order dated 19.3.2008 passed below said two applications, original claimant has taken out present petition.
6. Thus, it emerges from the record that the petitioner filed present petition at an interlocutory stage while reference proceedings of Reference Case still continued before and were pending before learned Labour Court.
7. On reading award it appears that by applications dated 13.3.2003 and 10.1.2006 the claimant had demanded translation of certain documents in Gujarati language on the ground that the original documents are in English and to properly understand the contents of the documents and effectively defend his case he should be supplied Gujarati Translation of the contents of said documents.
Page 3
HC-NIC Page 3 of 7 Created On Sat Aug 12 12:19:49 IST 2017
C/SCA/13383/2008 JUDGMENT
8. For the reasons recorded in the order learned Labour Court rejected said applications by interlocutory order dated 19.3.2008.
8.1 Against the said interlocutory order the petitioner filed this petition.
9. By now, the said reference must have been finally concluded.
9.1 Even if it is assumed that the reference proceedings are pending then also, there is no justification to continue present petition or to pass any order with regard to order impugned in present petition inasmuch as if final order is rendered against the claimant then claimant can challenge such final order on all available contentions including the contention that he did not get opportunity of defending his case for want of documents in the language which he understands. That is one reason in light of which the petition does not deserve to be entertained at this Page 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 7 Created On Sat Aug 12 12:19:49 IST 2017 C/SCA/13383/2008 JUDGMENT stage.
9.2 Second reason for dismissing the petition is that there is no one present on behalf of the petitioner to prosecute the petition on merits. It, therefore, appears that the petitioner does not want to prosecute the petition on merits.
10. From the said fact it appears that the petitioner has probably lost cause to prosecute the petition on merits or cause does not survive or he has abandoned present petition.
11. Besides facts stated above, it is relevant to mention the details stated by Mr. Dave, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent.
11.1 Mr. Dave, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent submitted that at the relevant time i.e. when the reference case and present petition were pending, the claimant had instituted certain other proceedings against Page 5 HC-NIC Page 5 of 7 Created On Sat Aug 12 12:19:49 IST 2017 C/SCA/13383/2008 JUDGMENT the order passed against him.
11.2 Mr. Dave, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent submitted that during pendency of this petition the claimant had approached Hon'ble Apex Court. He further submitted that ultimately in the Special Leave Petition No. 17228 of 2008 Hon'ble Apex Court passed final order dated 25.9.2013. The said order reads thus:-
"Delay condoned.
The special leave petition as also the Transferred Case stand disposed of in terms of the signed order."
11.3 Mr. Dave, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent submitted that in view of the said order by Hon'ble Apex Court the dispute which was pending before learned Labour Court by way of Reference No. 450 of 1983 is finally concluded and therefore the subject matter of present petition now does not survive. The said facts constitute third reason for disposing of this petition.
12. For the foregoing reasons and having regard to the above mentioned facts and also in view of the fact that the learned advocates for the petitioner are not present to prosecute the hearing of this petition, the petition is Page 6 HC-NIC Page 6 of 7 Created On Sat Aug 12 12:19:49 IST 2017 C/SCA/13383/2008 JUDGMENT disposed of as infructous. Rule is discharged. Ad-interim / interim relief, if any stands vacated forthwith.
Sd/-
(K.M.THAKER, J.) Suresh* Page 7 HC-NIC Page 7 of 7 Created On Sat Aug 12 12:19:49 IST 2017