SCA/309/2008 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 309 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= KABHAI G RAVAL - Petitioner(s) Versus DISTRICT COLLECTOR & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR SUBRAMANIAM IYER for Petitioner(s) : 1, GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, NOTICE UNSERVED for Respondent(s) : 2, NANAVATI ASSOCIATES for Respondent(s) : 2 - 3. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER Date : 26/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This petition is filed with a prayer that the SCA/309/2008 2/5 JUDGMENT respondent be directed to execute the recovery certificate issued by the Labour Court. The respondent No.1 - Collector has filed affidavit giving the details of actions claimed to have been taken by his office for executing the recovery certificate. It is further disclosed from the affidavit that the respondent No.3 Company has been closed down and notice issued by the office of the respondent No.1 - Collector has been returned. It is further disclosed in the affidavit that the site, where the respondent No.3 Company's unit was functioning, is now under the ownership of one "Bhumi Organizer" and certain constructions in name of "Pavitra Township" and "Ambika Niketan", have come up on those lands. Obviously for want of any other details regarding any assets of the Company, if at all there are any, the respondent No.1 may not be able to execute the recovery certificate. 2. Further it does not appear to be in dispute that the respondent No.3 Company has closed down the factory and its operation. It is also submitted by Mr. K.D. Gandhi, learned advocate for the respondent No.3 that the recovery certificates, which are SCA/309/2008 3/5 JUDGMENT subject matter of the petition, have been issued pursuant to an ex parte award and the respondent No.3 - Company has also filed Misc. Applications under Rule 26-A praying that the ex parte orders may be set aside and reference proceedings may be restored. It is also submitted that the said Misc. Applications are pending and being considered by the Labour Court. 3. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid events and development, particularly in view of the affidavit of the respondent No.1 and the fact that the Misc. Applications of respondent No.3 Company are receiving attention of the Labour Court, the further proceedings of recovery certificates obviously would be subject to the order, which may be passed by the Labour Court in the recovery certificates. Pendency and continuation of the present petition at this stage, therefore, does not appear to be of any fruitful purpose. Hence, the petition is disposed of at this stage, since the further course of action would depend on the orders which may be passed by the Labour Court in the Misc. Applications presented before it with prayer for setting aside ex parte orders. SCA/309/2008 4/5 JUDGMENT 4. Ms. Iyer, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that liberty to the petitioner to revive the petition, may be reserved in the event the restoration application is rejected or the respondent No.3 Company fails to get any order in connection with or against recovery certificates. Hence, it would be open for the petitioner to approach this Court for the very same relief for which the present petition has been preferred, if the Misc. Applications are not entertained by the Labour Court or any orders staying execution of the recovery certificates are not passed by the Labour Court. 5. Mr. Gandhi, learned advocate submitted that apart from subject recovery certificates, in various other matters, ex parte orders came to be passed by the Labour Court and subsequently, recovery certificates on the basis of such ex parte orders were issued and with regard to such certificate and ex parte orders, the respondent No.3 Company has filed various/separate Misc. Applications and in some of such Misc. Applications, order requiring the respondent No.3 Company to pay/deposit a sum of Rs.1 SCA/309/2008 5/5 JUDGMENT Lac is passed. Mr. Gandhi, learned advocate has placed copy of the said order dated 22.8.2008 on record to demonstrate that the Misc. Applications filed by the Company against the ex parte award are receiving attention of the Labour Court and appropriate orders are being passed. 6. With the aforesaid clarification and liberty to the petitioner, this petition is disposed of at this stage. (K.M.THAKER, J.)