Gujarat High Court
Mangrol Nagarpalika Through ... vs President, Garvi Gujarat General ... on 7 July, 2021
Bench: Umesh A. Trivedi
C/SCA/9516/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/07/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9516 of 2021
==========================================================
MANGROL NAGARPALIKA THROUGH CHIEF OFFICER
Versus
PRESIDENT, GARVI GUJARAT GENERAL KAMDAR MANDAL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MURALI N DEVNANI(1863) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR SAMIR B GOHIL(5718) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
Date : 07/07/2021
ORAL ORDER
Heard Mr.Krishnan Ghavariya, learned advocate for Mr.Murali
Devnani, learned advocate for the petitioner. Drawing attention of the
Court to the impugned judgment and award as also the reasonings
and finding recorded by it, it is submitted that the respondent-
workman was working in the capacity of Supervisor as referred to by
the Industrial Tribunal and he cannot be said to be a workman.
Therefore, according to his submission, Industrial Tribunal could not
have allowed the Reference and passed the impugned judgment and
award. Drawing attention of the Court to para-22 of the impugned
judgment and award, it is submitted that the orders passed by this
Court in Special Civil Application Nos.15090 of 2019 and allied
matters, based on which, the impugned judgment and award is
passed, against the judgment in those Special Civil Applications were
challenged by way of Letters Patent Appeals whereby, Letters Patent
Appeal Nos. 1890 of 2019 and other allied matters wherein appeals
have been admitted and conditional stay order is granted by the
Division Bench. Therefore, he has submitted that this petition be
admitted and impugned judgment and award may kindly be stayed.
C/SCA/9516/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/07/2021
Mr.Samir B. Gohil, learned advocate for the respondent-
workman submitted that if stay order is granted in the terms on which
Division Bench has granted it, he has no objection. Drawing attention
of the Court to page 47, last paragraph therein, which is an order
passed in the Letters Patent Appeals along with Stay Applications
whereby the direction for regularization of the respondents-workmen
is stayed subject to condition that, respondents-workmen would
continue to work and receive regular salary as admissible to the class
of posts on which they are working. Hence, Rule.
Mr.Samir B. Gohil, learned advocate for the respondent No.1
waives service of notice of rule.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, by way of
interim relief, the direction of the Industrial Tribunal in respect of
regularization of the respondent-workman would remain stayed
subject to the condition that respondent-workman would continue to
work and receive regular salary as admissible to the class of posts on
which he is working. Such regular salary would be paid with effect
form 1st August, 2021 and would remain subject to final outcome of
Letters Patent Appeal No.1890 of 2019 and other allied matters
and/or final disposal of this petition, whichever is earlier. Parties will
accordingly request the Court to suitably modify or alter the aforesaid
interim relief subject to outcome of these appeals.
(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J)
ASHISH M. GADHIYA
