SCA/4806/2008 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4806 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 ? ========================================================= SARDHAR GRAM PANCHAYAT - Petitioner Versus MOHANGAR DHANGAR GOSAI - Respondent ========================================================= Appearance : MR BHARAT T RAO for Petitioner : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Respondent : 1, MR KISHOR M PAUL for Respondent : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 12/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Mr. Paul, learned counsel waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent. By consent, SCA/4806/2008 2/3 JUDGMENT Rule is fixed forthwith. 2. The petitioner has preferred this petition assailing the order dated 10.12.2007 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rajkot in Misc. Application No. 35 of 2007 arising from Reference LCR No. 246 of 2002, whereunder, the restoration application along with delay condonation application have been dismissed for sole reasons of pendency of Special Civil Application No. 16308 of 2006. Shri Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that this cannot be a ground for rejecting the applications. 3. Shri Paul, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that Special Civil Application No. 16308 of 2006 was filed for seeking appropriate directions to the concerned Collector to whom recovery certificate was served. However, he fairly submits that the pendency of that petition would not be a ground for not deicing the mater on merits. 4. In view of this, this Court is of the view that pendency of the petition before this Court would not be a ground for the concerned Court to not decide the application especially when the counsels have submitted that there is not prohibitory orders obtained in the aforesaid Special Civil Application No. 16308 of 2006. It SCA/4806/2008 3/3 JUDGMENT goes without saying that impugned order dated 10.12.2007 deserves to be quashed and set aside and accordingly it is quashed. The Labour Court is hereby directed to decide the applications on merits. It goes without saying that quashing of the order impugned may not be construed in any manner that the Court has condoned the delay or held in favour of the employer. The parties are at liberty to lead appropriate evidences in support of their respective case in the applications and the Labour Court shall decide the same on merits in accordance with law without influencing by the order passed by this Court. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent only. There shall be no order as to costs. (S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) pallav