IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 1650 of 1986 AND SP.C.A.Nos.1652 of 1986, 6575 of 1986, 4109 of 1986, 569 of 1986, 1630 of 1986, 1972 of 1986, 6574 of 1986 and 2370 of 1987. For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement? 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? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? -------------------------------------------------------------- NARSI GOVIND Versus PROBANDAR MUNICIPALITY AND OTHERS Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 1650 of 1986 MR SURESH M SHAH for Petitioner MR ARUN H MEHTA for Respondent No. 1 MR YS LAKHANI for Respondent No. 2 MR BD KARIA for Respondent No. 3 -------------------------------------------------------- RAMESHCHANDRA DEVJI Versus PORBANDAR MUNICIPALITY AND OTHERS Appearance : 2. Special Civil ApplicationNo 1652 of 1986 MR SURESH M SHAH for Petitioner MR ARUN H MEHTA for Respondent No. 1 MR YS LAKHANI for Respondent No. 2 MR BD KARIA for Respondent No. 3 ------------------------------------------------------- LALITABEN RATANSI MASANI Versus PROBANDAR MUNICIPALITY AND OTHERS Appearance : 3. Special Civil Application No. 6575 of 1986 MR. B.P.TANNA for petitioner MR. ARUN H. MEHTA for Respondents. -------------------------------------------------------------- RAMA MANDAL AND ANOTHER Versus PORBANDAR MUNICIPALITY Appearance : 4.. Special Civil Application No. 4109 OF 1986 MR P H PATHAK for petitioners MR.ARUN H. MEHTA for respondent. -------------------------------------------------------- RANA RANJITSINH KANUBHAI AND ANOTHER Versus PORBANDAR MUNICIPALITY AND OTHERS Appearance : 5. Special Civil Application No. 569 of 1986 MR S.M.SHAH for petitioners. MR ARUN H MEHTA for respondent no.1. -------------------------------------------------------- JUNGI ASHOK LADHU AND OTHERS Versus PORBANDAR MUNICIPALITY AND OTHERS Appearance : 6. Special Civil Application No.1630 of 1986 MR.B.P.TANNA for petitioners MR.ARUN H MEHTA for respondent no.1 ------------------------------------------------------- MAHIPATSINH GAMBHIRSINH JADEJA Versus PORBANDAR MUNICIPALITY AND OTHERS Appearance : 7. Special Civil Application No.1972 of 1986 MR S.M.SHAH for the petitioner MR ARUN H. MEHTA for the respondent no.1 ------------------------------------------------------ HIRUBEN LADHUBHAI Versus PORBANDAR MUNICIPALITY AND ANOTHER Appearance : 8. Special Civil Application No. 6574 of 1986 MR.B P TANNA for the petitioner MR ARUN H MEHTA for the respondents ----------------------------------------------------- BHUPATRAI B VYAS AND ANOTHER Versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER Appearace :- 9. Special Civil Application No.2370 of 1987 MR R C PATHAK for the petitioners MR ARUN H MEHTA for the respondent no.2 ---------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE Date of decision: 09/05/96 COMMON ORAL JUDGEMENT Heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr.Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent Porbandar Municipality made a statement that the workman in Spl.C.A.NO.1658 of 1986 died on February 8, 1992. He further states that the workman petitioner in Spl. C.A.No. 6575 of 1986 died in 1992 and workman petitioner in Spl.C.A.No. 4109 of 1987 is not traceable and hence he is not in service. The facts are not required to be given in detail for the reasons that the counsel for the parties are in agreement that all the petitioners, except petitioner in Spl.C.A.No.4109 of 1987 have been taken back in service and they are continued in service and they are getting their regular pay on the post on which they are working. These are the subsequent events taken place. The petitioners are taken back in service on their regular pay scale on the basis of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot. In view of these facts, the petitions do not survive. Mr.S.M.Shah, the learned counsel for some of the petitioners, contended that the petitioners are claiming regular appointment from retrospective effect and in case, something remained to be paid as per the award, they may be given opportunity to approach to the Porbandar Municipality in respect of their grievances. Mr. Mehta, the Learned Counsel for the respondent Porbandar Municipality, on the other hand, contended that the petitioners are given all benefits for which they were entitled and now nothing remains to be considered. If that as it may be. In case the petitioners make some representation, it is always better for modern employer to consider the same and pass appropriate orders. This court cannot prohibit the petitioners from making any representation. It is a matter between the employer and employees and in case, an employee has any grievance, then he has fundamental right to make representation to the employer being modern one. In this case, the Porbandar Municipality which is a State within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution, has to consider the same and if the Municipality satisfies for the grievances, it has to be considered and if not, it may be rejected. For such matters, no courts are required. It is a mutual matter to be taken and decided by the Municipality. With the aforesaid observation, all the writ petitions are dismissed, without any orders as to costs. Rule discharged. Ad-interim relief, if any, granted earlier, stands vacated. -------