Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA/7157/2010 6/ 6 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7157 of 2010 [ENTITY] & 1 - Petitioner(s) Versus [ENTITY] & 2 - Respondent(s) Appearance : MRS [ENTITY] for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2. MRS [ENTITY] for Respondent(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 2, [ENTITY] for Respondent(s) : 3, CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE [ENTITY] Date : 28/06/2010 ORAL ORDER
1.0 Draft amendment granted.
2.0 By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed to direct respondents no. 2 and 3 not to evict the workers of the petitioner no.1 [ENTITY] from Jetty Colony, i.e. the residential colony provided by respondent no. 1.
3.0 According to the petitioners, 289 workers of the petitioner no.1-[ENTITY] were working with the respondent no. 1 and they were staying in the Jetty Colony, which is a residential colony provided by respondent no .1 since 1980. As some of the workers were illegally locked out and were not provided with work, the said workers through petitioner-[ENTITY] raised a dispute before the Industrial Tribunal which was numbered as [CASE NUMBER]. The Industrial Tribunal vide award dated 10.04.2007 directed the respondent to allow the workers to work and to pay them salary and other consequential benefits. Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent no. 1 preferred [CASE NUMBER] before this Court. This Court vide order dated 31.05.2007 stayed the impugned award dated 10.04.2007 passed by the Industrial Tribunal.
3.1. It is the case of the petitioner that pending reference and the petition before this Court, the workers continued to stay in Jetty Colony and somewhere in April, 2010, as the workers of the petitioner-[ENTITY] had an apprehension that the workers would be evicted forcefully from the residential premises, they preferred [CASE NUMBER] praying to direct respondent no. 1 not to evict the workers from the residential premises. The said Civil Application was withdrawn by the petitioner-[ENTITY] on 17.06.2010 with a liberty to approach appropriate forum. It is the case of the petitioner-[ENTITY] that several requests were made to respondent no. 1 not to evict the workers from the residential premises, but there was no response and therefore the present petition has been filed.
4.0 Mrs. [ENTITY], learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the workers of the petitioner-[ENTITY] are working with respondent no. 1 since last many years and therefore, respondent no. 1 should not evict the workers of the petitioner-[ENTITY] without any notice especially when they are staying at the premises for quite long time. It is further submitted that security threats have been given by respondent no. 1 in order to harass the workers staying in Jetty Colony. She has further submitted that the proposed action of the respondent no.1 of dispossessing the workers without due process of law is illegal and arbitrary.
4.1 At this stage, Mrs [ENTITY], learned Advocate for respondent no.1 has raised a preliminary contention that a writ petition is not maintainable before this Court against [ENTITY]. She submitted that respondent no. 1- "[ENTITY]" is neither a "State" under [SECTION] of the [ACT] nor is "an instrumentality of State" or "other authorities"
and as such a writ petition under [SECTION] of the [ACT] cannot be preferred against [ENTITY].
4.2 In support of her submission, she has placed reliance upon order of this Court dated 29th December 2008 passed by this Court in [CASE NUMBER] wherein the following decisions were considered in favour of his contention:
1) [PRECEDENT].
2) [PRECEDENT] delivered by this Court in [CASE NUMBER].
3) [PRECEDENT] delivered by this Court in [CASE NUMBER].
3) Ashok kumar and Others vs. [ENTITY] of India and Others with Sunil Shastry and Others vs. [ENTITY] of India and Others delivered by Allahabad High Court in [CASE NUMBER].
4) Bihar State Co-operative Marketing [ENTITY] Ltd and Another vs. Indian Farmers Fertilizer Co-operative Ltd. And others delivered by Patna High Court in [CASE NUMBER].
5) [PRECEDENT]
And others delivered by the Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court in [CASE NUMBER].
6) [PRECEDENT] delivered by the Allahabad High Court in [CASE NUMBER].
h) [PRECEDENT] delivered by Delhi High Court in [CASE NUMBER].
4.3 As against the above contention, learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that respondent no. 1 is a 'State' within the meaning of [SECTION] of the [ACT]. In support of her submission, she has placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of N.K. Aggarwal v. [ENTITY] of India & Ors. rendered in [CASE NUMBER] dated 03.12.2006, wherein the Court has held that [ENTITY] is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under [SECTION] of the [ACT].
4.4 According to the learned Advocate for the respondent no.1, apart from the maintainability of the petition, the Industrial Tribunal, Surat has held that there is no employer-employee relationship between [ENTITY] and the contract workers and therefore also no relief can be granted by this Court to the petitioners. She submitted that under the guise of being the erstwhile contractor's workers, not only the members of the petitioner [ENTITY] were squatting on [ENTITY] land but there was movement of other unauthorized persons in the vicinity of Heavy Water Plant and the subject area is a center of various illegal activities, which is required to be viewed as a serious threat not only for the Heavy Water Plant but also the installation of [ENTITY]. She therefore submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed.
5.0 Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the relevant materials on record, I am of the view that the petitioners are unable to produce on record of this petition any document showing that the members of the union were granted possession of the premises in question. For the very same relief the petitioners had approached this Court by way of Civil Application which came to be withdrawn with a view to challenging the action before appropriate forum, but thereafter the present petition has been filed. Admittedly disputed questions of facts with regard to possession, relation between employer-employee, etc. are involved in the matter which cannot be gone into by this Court.
5.1 Further, having regard to the nature of the relief sought in this petition, this Court is not required to enter into the question whether a writ is maintainable against [ENTITY] or not inasmuch as the relief sought in the present petition is direction against the eviction of the workers of the petitioner [ENTITY] from Jetty Colony. Assuming that a writ remedy is available, the relief which is claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted by this court under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. The adjudication in that behalf necessarily involves disputed questions of fact which require investigation. In such a case, proceedings under [SECTION] of the [ACT] can hardly be an appropriate remedy and the appropriate remedy for the petitioners is to approach the Civil Court or any other appropriate authority under the provisions of [ACT], which may be available to them. In that view of the matter I do not find any merits in the matter and therefore the petition is rejected.
6.0 However, it is hoped that the respondent authority will not commit any illegality for evicting the members of the petitioner No.1 [ENTITY] from the residential premises in question. Direct service is permitted today.
[K.S. JHAVERI, J.] ar