SCA/8074/1995 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8074 of 1995 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= DHIRAJLAL HARJIVANDAS MODI & 2 - Petitioner(s) Versus AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT SERVICE & 8 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MS KC DIVAKARAN FOR MR AK CLERK for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 3. MR SM MAZGAONKAR for Respondent(s) : 1, MR MG NAGARKAR for Respondent(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2 - 5. MR MUKESH H RATHOD for Respondent(s) : 6 - 9. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 08/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the respective petitioners have prayed for appropriate writ, order and/or directions, quashing and setting aside the order dtd.19/7/1995 SCA/8074/1995 2/3 JUDGMENT passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Complaint (I.T.) No.84 of 1995. It appears from proceedings that the dispute was with respect to the promotion of the petitioners to the post of Group Supervisor. An industrial dispute was raised and the same came to be dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal. 2. Mr.Nagarkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 – A.M.T.S. has stated at bar that so far as the petitioner No.1 is concerned, he has already retired w.e.f. 1/8/1996 and so far as the petitioner No.2 is concerned, he has retired w.e.f. 1/6/1997, on attaining the age of superannuation. He has also stated at bar that so far as the petitioner No.3 is concerned, he has taken voluntarily retirement w.e.f. 1/10/1996. 3. Ms.C.K. Divakaran, learned advocate for Mr.A.K. Clerk, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that he has no further instruction in the matter. 4. In view of the aforesaid statement made by Mr.Nagarkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 – AMTS, no further order is required to be passed with respect to the promotion of the petitioners to the post of Group Supervisor. SCA/8074/1995 3/3 JUDGMENT Accordingly, this petition is disposed of. Liberty to revive in case of difficulty. Rule is discharged. No costs. [M.R. SHAH, J.] rafik