IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No 1101 of 2001 in SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATIONNo 7107 of 2001 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE D.P.BUCH ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- PORBANDAR NAGARPALIKA Versus DEVA MEPA -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1101 of 2001 MR YOGESH S LAKHANI for Appellant No. 1 .......... for Respondents No. 1-18 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE and MR.JUSTICE D.P.BUCH Date of decision: 17/10/2001 ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per : MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE) In this appeal, order dated 31.8.2001 passed in Special Civil Application No.7107 of 2001 has been challenged. By virtue of the said order, notice was issued to the respondent workmen returnable on 21.9.2001 and by way of an interim order, it has been directed that the said 18 respondent workmen should be reinstated in service. 2. Learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the respondent workmen had been appointed for doing some miscellaneous work with regard to maintenance of roads and at present there is no work which can be given to the said 18 workmen. It has been submitted by him that if the said workmen are reinstated in service, it would be difficult for the appellant Nagarpalika to provide any work to them as there is no work which can be entrusted to them at present and the wages paid to them shall be burden on the appellant-Nagarpalika. 3. As the impuged order is only an interim direction given by the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, it would not be proper to interfere with the said order. Needless to say that it is always open to the appellant-Nagarpalika to retrench surplus workmen after following the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, if the Nagarpalika does not have sufficient work. Of course, as directed by the learned Single Judge, the said workmen will have to be first of all reinstated in service and thereafter, if the Nagarpalika feels that there is no work to employ all of them, it would be open to the Nagarpalika to retrench them in accordance with law. 4. In view of the above facts, we do not think that we should interfere with the impugned order at this stage and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed. 17.10.2001 [A R Dave, J .] [D P Buch, J.] msp