Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Bhupatbhai Laljibhai Goharia & on 25 March, 2015
Author: S.G.Shah
Bench: S.G.Shah
C/SCA/16262/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16262 of 2014
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT....Petitioner(s)
Versus
BHUPATBHAI LALJIBHAI GOHARIA & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MS MEGHA CHITALIYA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
CHANDRESH N JANI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR PARITOSH CALLA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR UT MISHRA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.SHAH
Date : 25/03/2015
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned AGP Ms. Megha Chitaliya for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. U. T. Mishra for respondent No.1.
2. The State has challenged the judgment and award dated 08.11.2012 by the Labour Court, Surendranagar in Reference (LCS) No. 56 of 2004, whereby Labour Court has though allowed the reference and directed to reinstate the petitioner, considering the facts and circumstances did not award the back-wages or any other monitory benefit.
3. The State has challenged such award on different count, but if we peruse the affidavit - in - reply by the respondent and more particularly letter dated 15.03.2014 at Annexure 1 by the Range Page 1 of 2 C/SCA/16262/2014 ORDER Forest Officer, Surendranagar, it becomes clear that impugned order has already been executed and petitioner has been reinstated. However, though petitioner has been removed again by an order dated 01.12.2014, the fact remains that initially the impugned order has already been executed and, thereafter, State has again dismissed him.
4. In view of such factual details, when impugned order is already executed and when Labour Court has not granted back- wages, I do not see any reason to entertain such petition and hence, the same needs to be dismissed summarily. Therefore, there is no substance in the petition and the same is dismissed. Notice discharged.
5. However, it is made clear that when there is no stay by this Court and when impugned order is challenged after a year and considering the order dated 21.11.2014, when this Court has already inquired about present position and now when present position is disclosed on record, the respondent may initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.
(S.G.SHAH, J.) drashti Page 2 of 2