Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.47 seconds)
Documents citing Gujarat State Road Transport ... vs S.T. Workers Union on 9 December, 2003

Gujarat State Road Transport ... vs Maheshbhai Navalshankar Pandya on 18 September, 2014

The second is the judgment of this Court (Coram: Honourable Ms.Justice R.M.Doshit, as Her Lordship then was) recorded on Special Civil Application No.10974 to 10976 of 1993 dated 20.09.2004 in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs. S.T. Workers' Union. Both the above, i.e. the order and the judgment respectively, are confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. Reference can be made to (i) the order of the Division Bench dated 12.03.2001 recorded on Letters Patent Appeal No.905 of 2000 in Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000, and (ii) the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 13.12.2005 recorded on Letters Patent Appeal No.1544 of 2005 in Special Civil Application No.10976 of 1993. Both the appeals were dismissed, thus both the orders of learned Single Judges stood confirmed. In all other subsequent orders, either of the above is followed. Thus, now it is to be seen as to, of these two, which order or judgment should be followed in this group of petitions. Having minutely gone through both the orders i.e. of Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000 and Special Civil Application No.10974 of 1993, this Court finds that, it is the judgment in Special Civil Application No.10974 of 1993 which lays down the law and not the order recorded on Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000. Further, the order of the Division Bench of this Page 17 of 20 C/SCA/11717/2014 JUDGMENT Court, dismissing the appeal (Letters Patent Appeal No.905 of 2000) against the order recorded on Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000 also makes it clear that, while deciding Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000, this Court had not laid down any law and the decision was rendered considering the facts of that case. The Division Bench had, while dismissing the said appeal, observed thus.
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - P Upadhyay - Full Document

Rajendrakumar Ratilal Sukhadia vs Divisional Controller on 3 February, 2022

The second is the judgment of this Court (Coram: Honourable Ms.Justice R.M.Doshit, as Her Lordship then was) recorded on Special Civil Application No.10974 to 10976 of 1993 dated 20.09.2004 in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs. S.T. Workers' Union. Both the above, i.e. the order and the judgment respectively, are confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. Reference can be made to (i) the order of the Division Bench dated 12.03.2001 recorded on Letters Patent Appeal No.905 of 2000 in Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000, and (ii) the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 13.12.2005 recorded on Letters Patent Appeal No.1544 of 2005 in Special Civil Application No.10976 of 1993. Both the appeals were dismissed, thus both the orders of learned Single Judges stood confirmed. In all other subsequent orders, either of the above is Page 5 of 9 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 10 20:11:36 IST 2022 C/SCA/3620/2019 ORDER DATED: 03/02/2022 followed. Thus, now it is to be seen as to, of these two, which order or judgment should be followed in this group of petitions. Having minutely gone through both the orders i.e. of Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000 and Special Civil Application No.10974 of 1993, this Court finds that, it is the judgment in Special Civil Application No.10974 of 1993 which lays down the law and not the order recorded on Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000. Further, the order of the Division Bench of this Court, dismissing the appeal (Letters Patent Appeal No.905 of 2000) against the order recorded on Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000 also makes it clear that, while deciding Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000, this Court had not laid down any law and the decision was rendered considering the facts of that case. The Division Bench had, while dismissing the said appeal, observed thus.
Gujarat High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - A S Supehia - Full Document

Sanjay Ratilal Patel vs Vibhagiya Niyamak, S.T. Vibhagiya ... on 3 February, 2022

The second is the judgment of this Court (Coram: Honourable Ms.Justice R.M.Doshit, as Her Lordship then was) recorded on Special Civil Application No.10974 to 10976 of 1993 dated 20.09.2004 in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs. S.T. Workers' Union. Both the above, i.e. the Page 8 of 12 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 10 20:11:48 IST 2022 C/SCA/4101/2019 ORDER DATED: 03/02/2022 order and the judgment respectively, are confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. Reference can be made to (i) the order of the Division Bench dated 12.03.2001 recorded on Letters Patent Appeal No.905 of 2000 in Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000, and (ii) the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 13.12.2005 recorded on Letters Patent Appeal No.1544 of 2005 in Special Civil Application No.10976 of 1993. Both the appeals were dismissed, thus both the orders of learned Single Judges stood confirmed. In all other subsequent orders, either of the above is followed. Thus, now it is to be seen as to, of these two, which order or judgment should be followed in this group of petitions. Having minutely gone through both the orders i.e. of Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000 and Special Civil Application No.10974 of 1993, this Court finds that, it is the judgment in Special Civil Application No.10974 of 1993 which lays down the law and not the order recorded on Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000. Further, the order of the Division Bench of this Court, dismissing the appeal (Letters Patent Appeal No.905 of 2000) against the order recorded on Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000 also makes it clear that, while deciding Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000, this Court had not laid down any law and the decision was rendered considering the facts of that case. The Division Bench had, while dismissing the said appeal, observed thus.
Gujarat High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - A S Supehia - Full Document

Jignesh Dineshbhai Patel vs Vibhagiya Niyamak, S. T. Vibhagiya ... on 3 February, 2022

The second is the judgment of this Court (Coram: Honourable Ms.Justice R.M.Doshit, as Her Lordship then was) recorded on Special Civil Application No.10974 to 10976 of 1993 dated 20.09.2004 in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs. S.T. Workers' Union. Both the above, i.e. the order and the judgment respectively, are confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. Reference can be made to (i) the order of the Division Bench dated 12.03.2001 recorded on Letters Patent Appeal No.905 of 2000 in Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000, and (ii) the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 13.12.2005 recorded on Letters Patent Appeal No.1544 of 2005 in Special Civil Application No.10976 of 1993. Both the appeals were dismissed, thus both the orders of learned Single Judges stood confirmed. In all other subsequent orders, either of the above is followed. Thus, now it is to be seen as to, of these two, which order or judgment should be followed in this group of petitions. Having minutely gone through both the orders i.e. of Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000 and Special Civil Application No.10974 of 1993, this Court finds that, it is the judgment in Special Civil Application No.10974 of 1993 which lays down the law and not the order recorded on Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000. Further, the order of the Division Bench of this Court, dismissing the appeal (Letters Patent Appeal No.905 of 2000) against the order recorded on Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000 also makes it clear that, while deciding Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000, this Court had not laid down any law and the decision was rendered considering the facts of that case. The Division Bench had, while dismissing the said appeal, observed thus.
Gujarat High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - A S Supehia - Full Document

Vikramsinh Chandubha Rana vs Divisional Controller on 3 March, 2022

15.2 It is the settled position of law that, a decision is an authority, for which it is decided, and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. Keeping this principle in view, and having read both the decisions of learned Single Judges, as well as both the orders of the Division Bench dismissing the appeals against those orders, this Court finds that, it is the judgment in Special Civil Application No.10974 of 1993 which lays down the law, and not the order recorded on Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000. While holding so, this Court is conscious of the fact that, the clause number has changed in the cases on hand, but the plain reading of clause-20 of the settlement which is on record, makes it clear that the decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No.10974 of 1993 would apply with full force as the law holding the field. 15.3 Further, the said judgment of this Court in Special Civil Application No.10974 of 1993 is followed as a precedent by this Court in more than one decisions. Reference can be made to one such decision i.e. the judgment of this Court recorded on Special Civil Application No.11711 of 2002 dated 11.01.2011. Keeping all these aspects in view, this Court arrives at the conclusion that, it is the judgment in Special Civil Application No.10974 of 1993 which should be followed while deciding this group of petitions, and not the order recorded on Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000. 16. Over and above, the above referred decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No.10974 of 1993, on the plain reading of clause-20 of the settlement in question, independently also, this Court had recorded a judgment on Special Civil Application No.10908 of 2014 dated 20.08.2014. The said decision will also apply with full force in this group of petitions. 17. Since the impugned award of the Tribunal is found to be illegal and unsustainable on merits, the question of delay in approaching the Tribunal by the workmen may not have much relevance in the facts of these cases, however it needs to be observed that, if the concerned workmen were right in their assertion that on Page 7 of 11 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 03 21:18:27 IST 2022 C/SCA/21144/2019 ORDER DATED: 03/03/2022 completion of 180 days service, counting from their initial date of engagement as a daily wager/ Badli worker, they ought to have been granted time scale, then there was inordinate and unexplained delay on their part in approaching the Tribunal. The situation in which the concerned workmen moved the Tribunal was such, where the concerned workmen can be said to have bound themselves by the doctrine of acceptance sub silentio, or that, at least the dispute raised was for a stale claim. A question may also crop up, as to whether, under those circumstances, the same could be even termed to be an industrial dispute.
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - A S Supehia - Full Document

Ajaysinh Khumansinh Zala/Rana vs Divisional Controller on 3 March, 2022

15.2 It is the settled position of law that, a decision is an authority, for which it is decided, and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. Keeping this principle in view, and having read both the decisions of learned Single Judges, as well as both the orders of the Division Bench dismissing the appeals against those orders, this Court finds that, it is the judgment in Special Civil Application No.10974 of 1993 which lays down the law, and not the order recorded on Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000. While holding so, this Court is conscious of the fact that, the clause number has changed in the cases on hand, but the plain reading of clause-20 of the settlement which is on record, makes it clear that the decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No.10974 of 1993 would apply with full force as the law holding the field. 15.3 Further, the said judgment of this Court in Special Civil Application No.10974 of 1993 is followed as a precedent by this Court in more than one decisions. Reference can be made to one such decision i.e. the judgment of this Court recorded on Special Civil Application No.11711 of 2002 dated 11.01.2011. Keeping all these aspects in view, this Court arrives at the conclusion that, it is the judgment in Special Civil Application No.10974 of 1993 which should be followed while deciding this group of petitions, and not the order recorded on Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000. 16. Over and above, the above referred decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No.10974 of 1993, on the plain reading of clause-20 of the settlement in question, independently also, this Court had recorded a judgment on Special Civil Application No.10908 of 2014 dated 20.08.2014. The said decision will also apply with full force in this group of petitions. 17. Since the impugned award of the Tribunal is found to be illegal and unsustainable on merits, the question of delay in approaching the Tribunal by the workmen may not have much relevance in the facts of these cases, however it needs to be observed that, if the concerned workmen were right in their assertion that on Page 7 of 11 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 03 21:18:32 IST 2022 C/SCA/21483/2019 ORDER DATED: 03/03/2022 completion of 180 days service, counting from their initial date of engagement as a daily wager/ Badli worker, they ought to have been granted time scale, then there was inordinate and unexplained delay on their part in approaching the Tribunal. The situation in which the concerned workmen moved the Tribunal was such, where the concerned workmen can be said to have bound themselves by the doctrine of acceptance sub silentio, or that, at least the dispute raised was for a stale claim. A question may also crop up, as to whether, under those circumstances, the same could be even termed to be an industrial dispute.
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - A S Supehia - Full Document

Divisional Controller, S T Division vs Its Workmen Shree Rajesh V Surani C/O ... on 17 March, 2022

The second is the judgment of this Court (Coram: Honourable Ms.Justice R.M.Doshit, as Her Lordship then was) recorded on Special Civil Application No.10974 to 10976 of 1993 dated 20.09.2004 in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs. S.T. Workers' Union. Both the above, i.e. the order and the judgment respectively, are confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. Reference can be made to (i) the order of the Division Bench dated 12.03.2001 recorded on Letters Patent Appeal No.905 of 2000 in Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000, and (ii) the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 13.12.2005 recorded on Letters Patent Appeal No.1544 of 2005 in Special Civil Application No.10976 of 1993. Both the appeals were dismissed, thus both the orders of learned Single Judges stood confirmed. In all other subsequent orders, either of the above is followed. Thus, now it is to be seen as to, of these two, which order or judgment should be followed in this group of petitions. Having minutely gone through both the orders i.e. of Page 5 of 10 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 17 23:07:27 IST 2022 C/SCA/2980/2022 ORDER DATED: 17/03/2022 Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000 and Special Civil Application No.10974 of 1993, this Court finds that, it is the judgment in Special Civil Application No.10974 of 1993 which lays down the law and not the order recorded on Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000. Further, the order of the Division Bench of this Court, dismissing the appeal (Letters Patent Appeal No.905 of 2000) against the order recorded on Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000 also makes it clear that, while deciding Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000, this Court had not laid down any law and the decision was rendered considering the facts of that case. The Division Bench had, while dismissing the said appeal, observed thus.
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - A S Supehia - Full Document

Ezazkhan Mohammadkhan Pathan vs Divisional Controller, Gujarat State ... on 17 March, 2022

The second is the judgment of this Court (Coram: Honourable Ms.Justice R.M.Doshit, as Her Lordship then was) recorded on Special Civil Application No.10974 to 10976 of 1993 dated 20.09.2004 in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs. S.T. Workers' Union. Both the above, i.e. the order and the judgment respectively, are confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. Reference can be made to (i) the order of the Division Bench dated 12.03.2001 recorded on Letters Patent Appeal No.905 of 2000 in Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000, and (ii) the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 13.12.2005 recorded on Letters Patent Appeal No.1544 of 2005 in Special Civil Application No.10976 of 1993. Both the appeals were dismissed, thus both the orders of learned Single Judges stood confirmed. In all other subsequent orders, either of the above is followed. Thus, now it is to be seen as to, of these two, which order or judgment should be followed in this group of petitions. Having minutely gone through both the orders i.e. of Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000 and Special Civil Application No.10974 of 1993, this Court finds that, it is the judgment in Special Civil Application No.10974 of 1993 which lays down the law and not the order recorded on Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000. Further, the order of the Division Bench of this Court, dismissing the appeal (Letters Patent Appeal Page 6 of 11 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 17 23:07:33 IST 2022 C/SCA/5274/2022 ORDER DATED: 17/03/2022 No.905 of 2000) against the order recorded on Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000 also makes it clear that, while deciding Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000, this Court had not laid down any law and the decision was rendered considering the facts of that case. The Division Bench had, while dismissing the said appeal, observed thus.
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - A S Supehia - Full Document

Nahersinh Madhusinh Bamana vs Divisional Controller on 17 January, 2022

The second is the judgment of this Court (Coram: Honourable Ms.Justice R.M.Doshit, as Her Lordship then was) recorded on Special Civil Application No.10974 to 10976 of 1993 dated 20.09.2004 in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs. S.T. Workers' Union. Both the above, i.e. the order and the judgment respectively, are confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. Reference can be made to (i) the order of the Division Bench dated 12.03.2001 recorded on Letters Patent Appeal No.905 of 2000 in Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000, and (ii) the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 13.12.2005 recorded on Letters Patent Appeal No.1544 of 2005 in Special Civil Application No.10976 of 1993. Both the appeals were dismissed, thus both the orders of learned Single Judges stood confirmed. In all other subsequent orders, either of the above is followed. Thus, now it is to be seen as to, of these two, which order or judgment should be followed in this group of petitions. Having minutely gone through both the orders i.e. of Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000 and Special Civil Application No.10974 of 1993, this Court finds that, it is the judgment in Special Civil Application No.10974 of 1993 which lays down the law and not the order recorded on Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000. Further, the order of the Division Bench of this Court, dismissing the appeal (Letters Patent Appeal No.905 of 2000) against the order recorded on Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000 also makes it clear that, while deciding Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000, this Court had not laid down any law and the decision was rendered considering the facts of that case. The Division Bench had, while dismissing the said appeal, observed thus.
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - A S Supehia - Full Document

Ratansinh Bhaijibhai Parmar vs Divisional Controller on 17 January, 2022

The second is the judgment of this Court (Coram: Honourable Ms.Justice R.M.Doshit, as Her Lordship then was) recorded on Special Civil Application No.10974 to 10976 of 1993 dated 20.09.2004 in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs. S.T. Workers' Union. Both the above, i.e. the order and the judgment respectively, are confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. Reference can be made to (i) the order of the Division Bench dated 12.03.2001 recorded on Letters Patent Appeal No.905 of 2000 in Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000, and (ii) the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 13.12.2005 recorded on Letters Patent Appeal No.1544 of 2005 in Special Civil Application No.10976 of 1993. Both the appeals were dismissed, thus both the orders of learned Single Judges stood confirmed. In all other subsequent orders, either of the above is followed. Thus, now it is to be seen as to, of these two, which order or judgment should be followed in this group of petitions. Having minutely gone through both the orders i.e. of Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000 and Special Civil Application No.10974 of 1993, this Court finds that, it is the judgment in Special Civil Application No.10974 of 1993 which lays down the law and not the order recorded on Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000. Further, the order of the Division Bench of this Court, dismissing the appeal (Letters Patent Appeal No.905 of 2000) against the order recorded on Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000 also makes it clear that, while deciding Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000, this Court had not laid down any law and the decision was rendered considering the facts of that case. The Division Bench had, while dismissing the said appeal, observed thus.
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - A S Supehia - Full Document
1   2 3 Next