Parmar Mulji Thakersinhbhai vs The Managing Director
2022 Latest Caselaw 807 Guj

    C/LPA/728/2021                                   ORDER DATED: 25/01/2022




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

           R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 728 of 2021
       In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21458 of 2019
==========================================================
                     PARMAR MULJI THAKERSINHBHAI
                                Versus
                        THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
=========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
       and
       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
                  Date : 25/01/2022

                       ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA)

1.0. Heard Mr. U T Mishra, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Dipak Dave, learned advocate for the respondent. 2.0. By way of this intra Court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 07.07.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge wherein it is observed thus:

"6.The second decision, which is relied on by the learned advocate for the petitioner in the case of Deesa Nagarpalika (Supra) for interpretation of the provision regarding entitlement of the workman thereunder, which is stated in it, there is no dispute in that regard. However, that decision is also not on the point whether the award passed by the Labour Court can be executed in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or not by this Court for release of wages from 09.09.2000 i.e. the date of enforceablity of the award till his reinstatement, when

C/LPA/728/2021 ORDER DATED: 25/01/2022

there is most alternative and efficacious remedy for enforcement of the award is prescribed under 'the Act' itself, no writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, that too, after an inordinate delay, which involves even calculation of the wages, would be maintainable. Hence, this petition is hereby rejected. Notice is discharged."

3.0. We are in total agreement with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge and even Mr. U T Mishra, learned advocate for the appellant could not dispute the same. Mr. Mishra contended that this Court may dispose of the appeal with the aforesaid liberty. The appellant is therefore, at liberty to approach alternative efficacious forum to claim benefits of the award which according to the appellant is in his favour. Without expressing any opinion on merits, appeal is disposed of with aforesaid liberty. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

(R.M.CHHAYA,J)

(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) KAUSHIK J. RATHOD