Gujarat High Court
Thakor Prakash Kumar Amratji vs State Of Gujarat on 5 September, 2022
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
C/SCA/17447/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/09/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.17447 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
THAKOR PRAKASH KUMAR AMRATJI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR BHAVDUTT H. BHATT(6162) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,10,100,101,102,103,104,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,23,24,25,2
6,27,28,29,3,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,4,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,
5,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,6,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,7,70,71,72,
73,74,75,76,77,78,79,8,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,9,90,91,92,93,94,95,9
6,97,98,99
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR KURVEN DESAI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 05/09/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Kurven Desai, learned
C/SCA/17447/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/09/2022
Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice
of Rule for the respondent No.1 - State.
2. With the consent of the learned advocates for the
respective parties, this petition is taken up for final
hearing today.
3. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
4. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioners have prayed for the following
reliefs:
"15(a) Be pleased to allow this Writ
Petition.
(b) Be pleased to issue writ of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction to the respondent No.3
(Company) to refrain from the termination /
discharge / transfer process of the present
petitioners and be further pleased to prohibit
the respondent No.3 (Company) from
engaging into Unfair Labour Practice unless
the learned Labour / Industrial Court decides
the reference of the petitioners."
C/SCA/17447/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/09/2022
5. Mr. Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioners would
submit that the challenge in this petition is to the
action of employer Company - respondent No.3 herein
who are likely to discharge or terminate the services of
the petitioners in violation of the bipartite settlement
arrived at in April, 2022. It is the case of the petitioners
that in the event the petitioners are terminated
pending approaching the labour Court for redressal of
their grievance, they will loose their livelihood and,
therefore, this Court in exercise of powers under Article
226 of the Constitution of India should breach out and
protect their services till they approach the labour
Court.
5.1. Mr. Bhatt would rely on the decision dated
17.11.2000 of the coordinate bench of this Court in the
case of Food Corporation of India Worker's Union
v. Food Corporation of India passed in Special Civil
Application No.10673 of 2000 with Civil Application
C/SCA/17447/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/09/2022
No.9972 of 2000. He would rely on the observations
made by the Court in reference to workers having
approached the Court for breach of settlement or
violation of the Contract Labour Act where the Court
observed that pending invoking the machinery if the
services are not protected, further proceedings would
become meaningless and infructuous. If the services
are terminated they would have endlessly wait for an
award which would result in future litigation. The right
and remedy would be a teasing illusion and would be
rendered otiose, practically compelling the workmen at
the mercy of the principal employer. Considering this,
the Court thought it fit to exercise its extra ordinary
jurisdiction to protect the interest of the labourers.
6. Considering the judgment on hand, admittedly, it was
against the Food Corporation of India, which was only
on Government Company and an instrumentality of the
State whereas the respondent No.3 - Company
C/SCA/17447/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/09/2022
admittedly is private company engaged in the
manufacturing of tyres, a Writ under under Article 226
of the Constitution of India would certainly not lie.
7. Even otherwise, the request of the learned counsel for
the petitioners cannot be considered even for the
limited aspect because that would tantamount
indirectly entertaining a petition and passing orders
thereunder. Only on this count, the petition is not
entertained. Hence, dismissed. Rule is discharged. No
costs.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)
VATSAL S. KOTECHA
