SCA/27517/2007 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 27517 of 2007 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 ? ================================================= DOSHI CHEMICALS - Petitioner Versus R P PATEL & 2 - Respondent ================================================= Appearance : MR DIPAK C RAVAL for Petitioner : MR DS VASAVADA for Respondent :1 MR NITIN K MEHTA for Respondent : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Respondents : 2 - 3. ================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 17/12/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Shri Vasavada, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 waives service of notice of rule. Counsels for respondent no.2 & 3 are found to be absent when the matter was called out. Rule is fixed forthwith with the consent of the counsels for the parties present. SCA/27517/2007 2/4 JUDGMENT 2. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the award dated 28/12/2004 as well as the order dated 5/10/2006 on the ground that both the award and the order are palpably erroneous and in as much not tenable in eye of law. The respondent workman had to raise industrial dispute as according to him he was terminated on 7/3/1998 without following due procedure of law. At that time he was an employee of a company called Cellulose Products Of India Ltd, the original party to the reference being Reference No. 198 of 1998 against whom dispute was raised and it was referred to the competent authority. Later on as could be seen from the record some application for joining the present petitioner as party had been made. The date is not mentioned but exhibit-9 application appears to have been made for rope-in the present petitioner as party respondent along with Cellulose Products Of India Ltd. The award was passed on 28/12/2004. Being aggrieved by the same as the workman was not their employee at all, the petitioner preferred Misc. Application for seeking restoration of the reference so that everything could be set right. Misc. Application came to be allowed and the reference was restored, meaning thereby, the original award was set aside. The petitioner, as per the record indicate, could not remain present and once again as a last order on 5/10/2006 the Court said that as the applicant petitioner has not remain present the earlier award is restored despite there being any application whatsoever from either side. Basically this order is impugned before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as well as th impugned award SCA/27517/2007 3/4 JUDGMENT which is erroneously sought to be revived is also sought to be challenged on merits that the same does not disclose any finding which could be said to be against the present petitioner for fastening it with any liability whatsoever in respect of the claim of the respondent workman. 3. Shri Raval for the petitioner contented that the order of this Court passed way back on 20/11/1998 in Special Civil Application No. 8488 of 1998 between Sarvoday Labour Union Vs. Cellulose Products Of India Ltd is also required to be looked in to which unequivocally go to show that the company that is Cellulose Products Of India Ltd had been not functioning as it was under liquidation. The petitioner has no nexus whatsoever and assuming that it has any nexus, same has not been proved and therefore the order impugned along with the award which is erroneously sought to be revived deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Shri Vasavada for the respondent submits that if in case this Court is inclined to accept the submission of the petitioner and quash the award qua the petitioner, then atleast some liberty be reserved to enforce the award qua original party No.1 against whom the award inures. Apart from this, though further submissions were canvassed, this Court is of the view that the award as well as the order restoring the same can not be sustained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as there has to be a specific finding with regard to the liability of SCA/27517/2007 4/4 JUDGMENT the present petitioner qua the respondent workman. In absence of any finding whatsoever the award could not have been passed against both the parties including the present petitioner. This Court is not observing anything with regard to Cellulose Products Of India Ltd and the award's tenability qua Cellulose Products of India Ltd, as it is not required in this proceedings. Suffice it to say that the award so far as the present petitioner is concerned, as having no findings with regard to liability deserves to be quashed and set aside, and accordingly same is quashed and set aside. 5. As the award is quashed and set aside, the order restoring it which is palpably erroneous to say the least is also quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. In the result the petition succeeds. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. However there shall be no order as to costs. 6. Allowing this petition will not come in any way as an impediment in the way of the workman for enforcing the award qua the first party no.1. [ S.R. BRAHMBHATT,J ] /vgn