Gujarat High Court
Kantibhai vs Banaskantha on 12 December, 2011
Author: K.M.Thaker
Bench: K.M.Thaker
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/5306/2011 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR DIRECTION No. 5306 of 2011
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 16313 of
2010
=================================================
KANTIBHAI
SHANKARBHAI MAKWANA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
BANASKANTHA
DISTRICT PANCHAYAT THROUGH MEDICAL OFFICER - Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance :
MR
SP MAJMUDAR for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR HS MUNSHAW for Respondent(s)
: 1,
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 12/12/2011
ORAL ORDER
When the application is called out and taken up for hearing, learned advocate for the applicant is not present. Mr. Kirit R. Patel, learned advocate is present on behalf of Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the opponent, however, he has requested for pass-over. Considering the issues involved in the application, the application may be decided and disposed of at this stage. Hence, Rule. Mr. Patel, learned advocate has waived service of notice of rule for the opponent.
2. The applicant has prayed for below mentioned relief in para-7(B) of present application:-
"7(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS May be pleased to direct the opponent-original petitioner to pay the full wages last drawn by the present applicant during pendency of the present proceedings before this Hon'ble Court from the date of award passed by Hon'ble Labour Court;"
3. It is noticed from the record that on 10.3.2011 the Court had passed order and issued Rule in the writ petition being SCA No.16313 of 2010. Accordingly, the writ petition was admitted vide order dated 10.3.2011. By the same order, the Court had also granted ad-interim relief in terms of para 7(C), subject to compliance of the requirement prescribed under Section 17B of the I.D.Act.
3.1 Subsequently, another order dated 28.4.2011 came to be passed whereby the ad-interim relief granted vide order dated 10.3.2011 got confirmed and has been ordered to be continued until the matter is finally decided. The said confirmation order is also made subject to compliance with the provisions under Section 17B of the Act.
4. The writ petitioner-Panchayat has challenged the award dated 10.2.2010 in the petition. By the said award, the learned Labour Court has directed present petitioner to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service and 25% backwages.
4.1 Against the operation of said award, the Court has granted interim relief in terms of para 7(C).
4.2 Consequently, the operation of the award has been stayed subject to the condition of compliance with the requirement under Section 17B of the Act.
5. From the application, it appears that the opponent herein has not complied with the said direction. The applicant - workman has declared that he is not gainfully employed in any establishment.
5.1 Therefore, present application is disposed of with the clarification that if the opponent herein does not comply with the directions contained in the order dated 10.3.2011 read with order dated 28.4.2011 and if it continues to cause default in the compliance and fails to pay the arrears of wages, if any is payable as per the aforesaid two orders within two weeks from today, then, the interim relief granted by the Court shall automatically stand vacated. Actually the orders dated 10.3.2011 and 28.4.2011 being conditional orders i.e. subject to compliance of the condition, would not take effect and would not come in operation unless and until the condition is complied. Thus, as such, there is no need to direct and/or clarify that the interim relief shall stand vacated. However, it is only for the benefit of the opponent that such clarification is made.
With the aforesaid observations, clarifications and direction, present application stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
[K.M.Thaker, J.] kdc Top