IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 2137 of 1988 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA ============================================================ 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD Versus GUJARAT MARIRIME BOARD -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR MC BHATT for Petitioner No. 1-2 MR JA SHELAT for Petitioner No. 1-2 MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA for Respondent No. 1-2,4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent No. 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA Date of decision: 13/07/2001 ORAL JUDGEMENT This petition is filed by two registered trade unions, principally seeking reliefs to the effect that the employees i.e. the members of the Unions as listed in various annexures should be regularised in services. 2. Rule was issued as far back as on 29th December, 1988. To-day when the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr.MC Bhatt, Advocate has placed a note on record stating that he had informed the petitioner-Unions by two telegrams. Thereafter, following communication was received by him from the office bearers of the unions : "The office bearers of Union informed Advocate M.C.Bhatt on telephone that employees concerned with subject matter, were not in touch with Union and Union was not in a position to give any instructions in respect of development in last many years." 3. In view of these fact and circumstances, Mr.Bhatt seeks permission to retire. Permission granted. 4. In view of the aforestated instructions issued by the office bearers of the petitioner-unions, it is apparent that the petitioners are not interested in pursuing the application at this length of time. The petition is, therefore, rejected. Ad-interim relief stands vacated. Rule discharged with no order as to costs. (D.A. Mehta, J) 'Bhavesh'