SCA/30160/2007 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 30160 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= DARSHANBHAI NATUBHAI PATEL - Petitioner(s) Versus KAMARSAD NAGARPALIKA & 3 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR TR MISHRA for Petitioner(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. MR MUKESH H RATHOD for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. MR KJ DWIVEDI ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 3 - 4. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER Date : 26/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This petition is filed by the workman of the respondent Nagarpalika. Since even after waiting for SCA/30160/2007 2/5 JUDGMENT almost 30 months from the date of award the respondent Nagarpalika did not comply with Award, the petitioner filed this petition with a prayer that the respondent Nagarpalika may be directed to implement the award. Until then the respondent Nagarpalika had not taken any action in connection with the Award dated 21.11.2006. 2. It is necessary to note that even after the presentation of the petition in December, 2007 and even after the Court issued notice on 28.12.2007, the respondent Nagarpalika did not take any action for almost 8 months i.e. in all for almost 21 months since the date of Award. 3. Today, when the Court was about to pass direction in view of the aforesaid facts and in light of the relief prayed for in the petition, Mr. Rathod, learned advocate for the respondent Nagarpalika submitted that on 29.7.2008 i.e. after almost 7 months since this Court issued notice in the petition and after almost 20 months since the date of Award, the respondent – Nagarplaik has filed Misc. Application under Rule 26A of the Industrial Disputes Act for restoration of the proceedings, since the Award, implementation of which SCA/30160/2007 3/5 JUDGMENT is prayed for in the present petition has been passed ex parte. 4. In response to the said submission of learned advocate Mr. Rathod, Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the application which is claimed to have been filed by the petitioner now after 20 months is obviously time barred and it appears to have been filed almost after 7 months since the Court issued notice in the petition only with a view to frustrating present petition. He submitted that in view of such facts, the respondent Nagarpalika may be directed to at least reinstate the petitioner during the consideration of the Misc. Application by the Labour Court. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, in light of the submission made by Mr. Rathod, learned advocate that now after 20 months, the respondent Nagarpalika has filed Misc. Application No.7 of 2008 on 29.7.2008 with a request for setting aside the ex parte Award, the respondent Nagarpalika is directed, by way of ad hoc and interim arrangement during the consideration of the Misc. Application, to reinstate the petitioner without prejudice its rights and contentions in the Misc. Application and to start paying him regular wages. The respondent Nagarpalika shall issue necessary SCA/30160/2007 4/5 JUDGMENT orders of reinstating the petitioner w.e.f. 1.9.2008 without prejudice to the prayer in the Misc. Application. 6. It is clarified that the Labour Court will decide Misc. Application in accordance with law after considering all submissions and objection of the petitioner - workman herein and also without being influenced by the fact that by virtue of this Court's order, the respondent Nagarpalika is directed to reinstate the petitioner. The said aspect should not influence the Labour Court in taking any decision in connection with the relief prayed for by the respondent Nagarpalika. It is also clarified that this ad-hoc arrangement shall not create any equity or right in favour of the petitioner. 7. It is pertinent to note that on 4.1.2008, the Executive Committee of the respondent Nagarpalika is said to have passed Resolution being Resolution No.37 taking decision to reinstate the respondent on his original post and yet the said Resolution is not implemented during this entire period of 7 months and instead now on 29.7.2008, as claimed by Mr. Rathod, learned advocate Misc. Application is filed in the Labour Court. Be that as it may, The conduct of the Executive Committee and of the respondent Nagarpalika that even after the Resolution dated 4.1.2008, the respondent Nagarpalika did not inform SCA/30160/2007 5/5 JUDGMENT this Court about the said Resolution and kept on dragging this petition, is unjustified and for such action, it is considered appropriate to grant costs in favour of the petitioner, which is quantified at Rs.2000/-. The aforesaid Resolution No.37 dated 4.8.2008 is kept on record. 8. In view of the aforesaid direction, Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioner does not press this petition at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of at this stage, as not pressed. Direct service is permitted. (K.M.THAKER, J.) ynvyas