Gujarat High Court
Divisional Controller - Gujarat State ... vs Prahladbhai Hargovinddas on 22 April, 2013
Author: Paresh Upadhyay
Bench: Paresh Upadhyay
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER - GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN.....Petitioner(s)V/SPRAHLADBHAI HARGOVINDDAS PRAJAPATI
C/SCA/1814/2013
ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL
APPLICATION NO. 1814 of 2013
================================================================
GUJARAT STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPN.....Petitioner
Versus
PRAHLADBHAI HARGOVINDDAS
PRAJAPATI
AND ANOTHER
....Respondents
================================================================
Appearance:
MR GM JOSHI, ADVOCATE for
the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR JS BRAHMBHATT, ADVOCATE
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR PARITOSH CALLA, ADVOCATE
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
Date : 22/04/2013
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr.G.M.Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.J.S.Brahmbhatt, learned advocate for the respondent workman.
2. Rule.
Learned advocate Mr.Brahmbhatt waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no.1.
3.1 Learned advocates for the respective parties are heard on the question of interim relief. At the outset it is recorded that, at the time of issuance of notice on 18.02.2013, this Court had already granted stay against the implementation and operation of the impugned award of the Industrial Tribunal.
3.2 Learned advocate for the petitioner Mr.Joshi has contended that the impugned award is passed solely, considering the aspect that approval was not asked for or was granted by the competent authority, about the dismissal order dated 12.08.2000. It is further contended that this finding is perverse since the approval was asked for and the same was granted also and the material in that regard is not taken into consideration before passing the impugned award. It is further pointed out that to be doubly sure, it was inquired from the authorities as to when the approval in question was asked for and when the same was granted. On this, it is confirmed that approval was asked for by the petitioner authority and the same was granted by the competent authority at the relevant time. A copy of the communication in this regard is given to the learned advocate for the respondent as well.
3.3 Further, even the operative part of the impugned award records that the dismissal order was dated 12.08.2000 and the complaint against that was made on 29.03.2005 by the respondent. Respondent has retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2007.
3.4 On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent workman has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in case of Tops Security Ltd., versus Subhash Chander Jha & Another reported in 2013 (136) FLR 17 to support the impugned award.
4. There can not be any dispute with regard to the proposition of law annunciated in the judgment relied by the respondent, however the said judgment is rendered in the fact situation when approval was not taken under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and it is held that the merits of the matter are not required to be gone into. In the present matter, it is precisely pointed out that the approval was asked for and granted. Under these circumstances, this judgment will not help the respondent.
5. Under these circumstances, during pendency of this petition, the impugned award can not be permitted to operate.
6. Considering the totality of the facts, in my view, interim relief in terms of paragraph 7(B) needs to be granted and is granted, which shall operate during pendency of the petition.
(PARESH UPADHYAY, J.) MH Dave/23 Page 3 of 3