IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 7633 of 1997 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE H.L.GOKHALE Sd/- ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No @ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement? No 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? No 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? No -------------------------------------------------------------- KANTIJI SHIVAJI THAKORE Versus KALOL NAGARPALIKA -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MRS DT SHAH for Petitioners MR MI PATEL for Respondent No. 1 & 2. MRS. PARIKH for Respondent No. 3 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent No. 4 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE H.L.GOKHALE Date of decision: 08/09/98 ORAL JUDGEMENT Heard Mrs.Shah for the petitioners. Notice had been issued in this matter on 17.10.1997. Mr.M.I.Patel, learned Counsel appears for Respondents Nos.1 & 2, i.e. Nagarpalika and its Chief Officer. Respondent No.3 Director of Municipalities is also served. The petition was amended later on and the Administrator has been joined as Respondent No.4. He is also served. Mrs.Parikh appears for Respondent No.3. 2. All that the petitioners say is that they are daily-rated workers who were working under Kalol Municipality for more than 15 years and they work in the construction department. That is the averment made in paragraph 5. The list of employees is annexed at Annexure-A. In that, names of the petitioners appear at serial Nos.2, 4,5 & 7. It is stated in the added paragraph 6-A that one Govindbhai Ganeshbhai, whose name appears at serial No.12, though junior to the petitioners, had been taken back on duty on 20.7.1998. The petitioners are challenging their oral terminations. They are not seeking anything more. Their dispute with respect to permanancy is pending before the Industrial Tribunal which is also stated in paragraph 5. 3. I nthe facts of this case, since nothing is being stated on behalf of the respondent although the matter has been pending for more than ten months, it is just and proper to pass appropriate orders. Mr.Patel has no objection if the petition is disposed of. In the circumstances, RULE is issued on the petition and the same is made returnable forthwith. The material on record is as stated above. All the learned Counsel have been heard. Mr.Patel has stated that, in view of the Administrator coming over, there are some difficulties in the functioning of Respondent No.1. That is a matter of their internal look-out. Though the Administrator is joined, he has not filed any reply. In paragraph 5 of the petition, it is specifically averred that no notice was given to the petitioners as required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 4. In the light of what is stated above, Rule is made absolute and the oral terminations of the petitioners are set aside. The Respondents are directed to reinstate them as daily wagers on the same conditions of service on which they were working earlier. The petitioners will not be entitled to any higher status and Mrs.Shah has also not been asking for anything more through this petition. The contention with respect to permanency will be considered in the Industrial Tribunal. With respect to back-wages, the petitioners may avail of any other remedy, if available to them. The petitioner will be reinstated on or before 01.10.1998. 5. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. (KMG Thilake) $$$$$$$$$