SCA/802420/2008 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8024 of 2008 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9286 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ================================================= 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 ? ================================================= SHREE VIDHYUT KAMDAR SANGH EST. OF GUJARAT STATE - Petitioner Versus GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPN. LTD. THRO. MAN.DIRECTOR & 2 - Respondents ================================================= Appearance : MR TR MISHRA for Petitioner : MR MD PANDYA for Respondent : 1, NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondents : 2 - 3. MR KRUNAL D. PANDYA for Respondent : 3, ================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 16/09/2008 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Learned counsels in both the petitions waives service of notice of rule on behalf of their respective respondent. With the consent of the counsels for the parties rule is fixed forthwith. SCA/802420/2008 2/3 JUDGMENT 2. Special Civil Application No. 8024 of 2008 is with regard to a direction pending conciliation proceedings for maintaining status-quo. An apprehension was expressed that if the status- quo is not maintained then the posts in question will be filled- in and that might have defeating effect upon the ultimate relief that may be required to be granted in case the failure report is filed and reference is made and it is decided. Another petition being Special Civil Application no.9286 of 2008 is in respect of similar prayer with an additional prayer of certain appropriate direction for making direction as the reference was not made with respect to the industrial dispute. The respondent in the appropriate authority has referred the matter now for industrial dispute to the adjudicating authority and hence these petitions are required to be disposed of with an appropriate direction. 3. Shri Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents were required to maintain status-quo qua the service conditions of the concerned workmen during pendency of conciliation proceedings and subsequent proceedings as the workmen had a genuine apprehension with regard to filling-up the posts so as to adversely affect their chance, the petition being Special Civil Application No. 8024 of 2008 was filed. But now as the dispute is referred atleast some direction be issued to the Industrial Tribunal to decide the application for interim relief that may be made by the workmen by way of complaint under Section 33 of the I.D. Act or a simple application for interim relief within a stipulated time on its on merits and in accordance with law. 4. Learned counsels for the respondents submitted that there is no violation of any condition so as to warrant complaint under SCA/802420/2008 3/3 JUDGMENT Section 33 of I.D. Act. However they submitted that if such an application is made the same could be decided on merits and there can not be any objection to this effect. 5. In view of this, it will be open to the workmen – petitioner in both the petitions to make an appropriate application and proceedings under Section 33 of I.D. Act, and if such proceedings / or application is made for interim relief, same shall be decided by the concerned Industrial Tribunal on its own merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within ten weeks from the date of receipt of such application. Learned counsels submit that their client will cooperate in the proceedings and will not seek for avoidable adjournments. 6. Both the petitions are disposed of accordingly. Rule discharged. Status-quo granted in Special Civil Application No. 9286 of 2008 shall stand vacated. However there shall be no order as to costs. [ S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J ] /vgn