Narvatbhai Amarabhai Pagi vs R V Patel , Range Forest Officer
2022 Latest Caselaw 1572 Guj

     C/MCA/881/2021                                ORDER DATED: 10/02/2022




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 881 of 2021

           In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2772 of 2018

==========================================================
                         NARVATBHAI AMARABHAI PAGI
                                     Versus
                      R V PATEL , RANGE FOREST OFFICER
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR P C CHAUDHARI(5770) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. D.M. DEVNANI, AGP for the respondent - State
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
       ARAVIND KUMAR
       and
       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA

                               Date : 10/02/2022

                        ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR)

1. The application has been filed alleging violation of the common order dated 05.11.2020 as clarified on 05.01.2021 in Special Civil Application No. 2767 of 2018.

2. We have heard Mr. P.C. Chaudhari, learned counsel appearing for the complainant and Mr. Dharmesh Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State. The order which according to Mr. Chaudhari, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has been violated passed in Special Civil Application No. 2767 of 2018, reads as under :-

"26. In view of the above conspectus of law, Labour Court has rightly passed the award of reinstatement of

C/MCA/881/2021 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2022

the petitioner with continuity of service to his original post without back-wages and so far as communication dated 6th November, 2017 is concerned, the same is contrary to the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, therefore, such communication is also quashed and set aside directing respondent no. 1 to reinstate the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of writ of this order so as to comply with the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court."

2.1. On account of non compliance of aforesaid order, the complainant had undisputedly approached this Court earlier by filing Misc. Civil Application No. 408 of 2021 and connected matters for initiating contempt proceedings against the contemners herein. In the earlier round of litigation, the co- ordinate Bench took note of the submission made by the then learned Assistant Government Pleader which was to the effect that State was contemplating to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge, and directed the respondents to comply with the order of the learned Single Judge in toto within a period of eight weeks. On account of its non compliance, yet again the complainant has been perforced to approach this Court by filing the present application. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of first respondent at paragraph 4 of the affidavit dated 24.01.2022, it is clearly stated that pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge, the petitioner has been reinstated on 21.01.2022. However, learned counsel appearing for the complainant would vehemently contend that order dated 05.11.2020 as modified on 05.01.2021 has not been complied with in toto and complainant is entitled for the wages from the date of the award till the date of reinstatement. The order of the learned Single Judge as noticed herein-above,

C/MCA/881/2021 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2022

which affirms the award of the Labour Court is to the effect that the complainant herein should be reinstated within a period of three months and the communication which came to be issued by the respondent to the complainant contrary to award also came to be quashed. First respondent was directed to reinstate the petitioner within a period of three months as noted above. In fact, the award of the Labour Court having been affirmed and the first respondent having reinstated the complainant, which is also evident from the resumption report Annexure-R.II, question of continuation of the present contempt proceedings is not warranted. Hence, contempt proceeding stands dropped. It is made clear that in the event of the complainant being aggrieved by the order dated 21.01.2022, he would be at liberty to challenge the same in the manner known to law.

(ARAVIND KUMAR,CJ)

(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J) AMAR SINGH