Gujarat High Court
Jesingbhai Akhamabhai Bamaniya vs Range Forest Officer on 9 June, 2022
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
C/SCA/16883/2013 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16883 of 2013
==========================================================
JESINGBHAI AKHAMABHAI BAMANIYA & 8 other(s)
Versus
RANGE FOREST OFFICER & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR P C CHAUDHARI(5770) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,2.1,3,4,5,6,6.1,7,8
MR ROHAN SHAH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR PARITOSH CALLA(2972) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
Date : 09/06/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
is filed with following prayer(s):-
"17(A)YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or
appropriate writ and/or certiorari or direction by quashing and
setting aside the order dated 05.03.2013 passed in
Misc.Application No.58 of 2008, as the same is prima facie
improper, arbitrary, unjust, unfair and contrary to the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as well as
contrary to the Rules made thereunder and be further please
to quash and set aside the same.
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be further pleased to restore the award
dated 07.10.2008 passed in Reference (LCG) No.513 OF 1999
to 518 OF 1999, 520 of 1999, 521 of 1999 and 523 of 1999
and be pleased to direct the respondent to reinstate the
petitioners on their original post with continuity of service along
with 30% backwages and consequential benefits, as awarded
by the learned Labour Court.
(C) ...
(D) ..."
2. The grievance of the petitioners is against the order passed
by the Presiding Officer of Labour Court, Godhara dated
05.03.2013 in Misc.Application No.58 of 2008 in Reference
(L.C.G) No.513 of 1999 to 518 of 1999, 520 of 1999, 521 of 1999
and 523 of 1999. The main contention of the petitioners is that,
C/SCA/16883/2013 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2022
as the petitioners had preferred 9 separate references, which
came to be allowed under the award by the Labour Court, if
aggrieved, it was for the State Government to prefer separate
Misc.Application for recall of such award instead the common
Misc.Application has been filed, which according to the
petitioner, is not maintainable in view of the decision passed by
this Court in Letters Patent Appeal Nos.2048 and 2059 of
2011 in case of Manager - M/s. Zen Pharma Vs Lila R. Patel
C/o. Gujarat Rajya Kamdar Sabha & Ors.
3. Learned AGP appearing on behalf of respondent-State
states that in view of observations made by the Division Bench,
the objections of the petitioners against filing of the
Misc.Application is technical, but such technicality cannot
preclude the State from agitating the legal points by filing an
individual Misc.Application in each of the reference rather than
joint Misc.Application filed in the present case.
4. Learned AGP also submitted that the State Government
had preferred a Single Misc.Application for recall of the award
under the bonafide impression that all the 9 references were
disposed of by the Labour Court by a common judgment and
award.
5. Having heard the learned advocate appearing for the
parties and having perused the documents on record, the
petitioners are the applicants before the Labour Court, Godhara
in Reference (L.C.G) No.513 OF 1999 to 518 OF 1999, 520 of
1999, 521 of 1999 and 523 of 1999, which came to be allowed
by award dated 07.10.2008 against which Misc.Application
No.58 of 2008 was jointly filed in all the 9 references. Such
C/SCA/16883/2013 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2022
application came to be allowed by the impugned order dated
05.03.2013, wherein the award in the reference cases came to be
set-aside and the reference was ordered to be heard on merits.
6. This Court in Letters Patent Appeal Nos.2048 and 2059 of
2011 while referring to Rule 26(A) held as under:-
"7. The Rule clearly provides that for setting aside exparte award,
an application has to be filed duly supported by an affidavit. This
means that for each award, a separate restoration application is
required to be filed supported by an affidavit. Counsel for the
appellant has urged that since the references were consolidated,
therefore, single restoration application was filed. Though
References were consolidated, separate awards were passed in
each References and hence, by no stretch of imagination, it can
be said that single application for setting aside 19 awards was
maintainable. The said restoration application was not
maintainable as per Rules 26A of the Rules. "
7. In view of aforesaid, the impugned order is ordered to be
set-aside. However, considering the nature of litigation and
submissions made by learned AGP, it will still be open for the
respondent-department to file individual Misc. Application
against the award in the references in question and contest the
same on merits. Such Misc. Application, if any, be made within
the reasonable period of 3(Three) months from the date of receipt
of this order, which may be dealt with by the concerned Labour
Court, Godhara in accordance with law.
8. With the aforesaid observations, the present petitions
stand partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent.
(A.Y. KOGJE, J)
GIRISH
