SCA/807719/1988 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8077 of 1988 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= M R C EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION - Petitioner(s) Versus DIRECTOR GENERAL & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR RN SHAH for Petitioner(s) : 1, (MR.MOHIT S SHAH) for Respondent(s) : 1, MR SUNIL K SHAH for Respondent(s) : 2 - 3. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 10/10/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The prayer of the petitioner is to direct the respondents to follow the byelaws governing the condition of services of the employees of the Malaria SCA/807719/1988 2/3 JUDGMENT Research Centre as followed in the matter concerned the service condition of the employees of the Council and to hold that the employees of the Malaria Research Center are employees of the Counsel and they are entitled to be governed by the byelaws governing the conditions of services of the employees of the council. 2. This petition can be disposed of only on the point that the petitioner association is not recognised by the respondents. Para 4 of the affidavit in reply reads as under: “4. At the outset, I respectfully submit that the present petition is not maintainable as the petitioner Association called “Malaria Research cent re Employees' Association, Nadiad”, is not recognized by the respondents. The petitioner Association does not, therefore, have the locus standi to file the present petition.” 3. The above position is not controverted by the petitioners. 4. In the premises aforesaid the petition is rejected. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. [K.S. JHAVERI, J.] SCA/807719/1988 3/3 JUDGMENT ar