Gujarat High Court
Ineos vs Assistant on 13 May, 2011
Author: H.K.Rathod
Bench: H.K.Rathod
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/5073/2011 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5073 of
2011
=========================================================
INEOS
ABS (INDIA) LIMITED - Petitioner(s)
Versus
ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR AND THE CONCILIATION & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR.VARUN
K.PATEL for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
4.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 13/05/2011
ORAL
ORDER
Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. KM Patel with learned advocate Mr.Varun K. Patel for petitioner. I have considered submissions made by learned Senior Advocate Mr. KM Patel on behalf of petitioner.
In this petition, petitioner has challenged order passed by Assistant Commissioner of Labour and Conciliation Officer, Baroda dated 26th November, 2010 page 14 Annexure A to this petition wherein decision has been taken by Assistant Commissioner of Labour and Conciliation Officer, Baroda under rule 66 sub rule (4) of Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966 and recognized one employee Mr. Vinaybyai Rameshbhai Patel as Protected Workman for period from 1st October, 2010 to 30th September, 2011. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. KM Patel for petitioner has submitted that before passing this order, Conciliation Officer may have issued notice but it has not been received by petitioner. Not only that but even letter of union which is at page 17 and xerox copy page 19 dated 27th September, 2010 has also not been received by petitioner. He also raised contention that under section 33 sub section (3) and (4), names of four employees/office bearers were sent by union and out of that, only one Vinaybhai Rameshbhai Patel has been considered as protected workman by Conciliation Officer. For that, no reasons have been assigned why only one employee has been considered as protected workman. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. KM Patel for petitioner has further submitted that disciplinary proceedings are pending against respondent NO.2 Vinaybhai Rameshbhai Patel at the stage of show cause notice after finding given by inquiry officer, therefore, according to him, this is an effort made by union to give protection only to respondent NO.2.
In view of this back ground, considering submissions made by learned Senior Advocate Mr. KM Patel on behalf of petition, question involved in this petition would require detailed examination. Hence, Rule. Ad interim relief in terms of para 5(b). Notice as to interim relief returnable on 28th June, 2011.
(H.K. Rathod,J.) Vyas Top