Superintending Agricultural ... vs Sham W. Gaikwad And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 14068 Bom

         Digitally
         signed by
         PRASHANT
PRASHANT VILAS
VILAS    RANE
RANE     Date:


                                                                  8-CAW-1156-2011.docx
         2021.10.02
         19:00:51
         +0530




   Pdp


                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISIDICTION
                                CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1156 OF 2011
                                                IN
                                  WRIT PETITION NO. 4377 OF 1994

                      Superintending Agricultural Officer
                      Nashik Division, Nashik & Ors.                .. Applicants/
                                                                    Org. Petitioners
                                 Versus

                      Sham Wamanrao Gaikwad & Ors.                  .. Respondents

                      Ms. M. S. Bane, AGP for applicants/org. petitioners.
                      Ms. Seema Sarnaik for respondent nos.2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 20,
                      22, 24, 27, 41, 48, 63, 66, 67, 77, 78, 101, 102, 106, 107,
                      110, 111, 112, 113, 115, 132, 141, 153, 155, 159, 163, 164
                      & 167.
                      Mr. Pramod N. Joshi for respondent nos.5, 10, 11, 13, 15, 18,
                      19, 21, 23, 26, 33, 34, 35, 43, 37, 49, 95, 114, 123, 125,
                      128, 150 & 158.

                                       C0RAM: G. S. KULKARNI, J.

DATE: SEPTEMBER 29, 2021

PC:

1. This is an old pending Civil Application filed on May 5,

2011 seeking restoration of the Writ Petition No. 4377 of

1994, which came to be dismissed by the following order

passed on February 2, 2011: -

" It appears that the petition has become infructuous after the passage of time and is therefore dismissed as such.

8-CAW-1156-2011.docx

However, if anything survives in the petition, the petitioner is at liberty to move the Court after giving notice to the respondents. The petitioner must also show that the dispute still survives if it wants to have the petition restored."

There is also a prayer for condonation of delay, however, there

is a blank in the prayer in as much as the period of delay has

not been set out. The application, therefore, itself is defective

on the prayer made in regard to the condonation of delay.

2. Be that as it may, what is material is that when the writ

petition was dismissed by this Court by the aforesaid order, as

infructuous with the passage of time with a liberty to the

petitioner to move the Court if anything survives in the

petition, however, with a condition that if something survives,

the petitioners were under obligation to show that the dispute

survived if they intended to have the petition restored.

Accordingly, I have asked Ms. Bane, learned AGP, to show the

averments in the application which would point out that

something would survive in the writ petition. Ms. Bane,

however, could not draw my attention to any averment in the

civil application to show that something remains to be

adjudicated on the writ petition.

3. There is a reason for this and which is clearly

8-CAW-1156-2011.docx

reflected from the order dated August 3, 1993 passed by the

Industrial Court, Nashik, on the Revision Application(s), which

were filed by the petitioners assailing the order passed by the

Labour Court, Nashik dated July 31, 1992. In paragraph 8 of

the said order, the Industrial court has categorically observed

that during the pendency of the revision applications, an

application was made on behalf of the revision petitioners at

Exh.C-5 requesting to stay the operation of the order of the

Labour Court dated July 31, 1992. It was mentioned that out

of 176 employees, 146 have been absorbed in Government

service. Out of these 146, 126 persons were given

appointments in view of Government Resolution dated

January 1, 1992 and that too prior to the judgment dated July

31, 1992 passed by the Labour Court. It was also recorded

that remaining 20 persons have been employed in view of

Circular dated January 1, 1992 and they accepted the

conditions of service as imposed.

4. Ms.Seema Sarnaik and Mr.Pramod Joshi, learned counsel

appearing for the respondents-workers state that in the above

circumstances this Court had rightly disposed of the writ

petition by the order dated February 2, 2011 as infructuous as

8-CAW-1156-2011.docx

also the said order was passed in the presence of the

petitioners. They submit that there is nothing on record to

show that the impugned orders passed by the Labour Court

and as confirmed by the Industrial Court were not acted upon

and, in fact, have been accepted and implemented qua the

absorption of the concerned workers, hence, nothing had

remained to be adjudicated on writ petition.

5. In the above circumstances, it appears to be clear from

the memo of the application that no averment has been made

by the applicants/petitioners that any dispute at all survives

and as such no relief can be granted on this application.

6. The application is accordingly dismissed, No costs.

(G. S. KULKARNI, J.)