(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. The applicant, original petitioner of Special Civil Application No.10347 of 2011, complains of non-compliance of the directions of the learned Single Judge in his order dated 7.12.2011, which reads as under:-
"6. Taking into consideration the rival submissions of both the parties, respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the amount with the Registry of this Court on or before 18.10.2011.
S.O.
to 19.10.2011."
2. It is a case of the applicant that though this Court by order dated 8.8.2011 stayed the order of the Labour Court and such order was served on respondent on 18.8.2010, the respondent withdrew the amount of gratuity on 20.8.2011. It was on this count that the learned Single Judge in the further order dated 6.9.2011, required the respondent herein to deposit the said amount in the Registry of this Court.
3. It appears that the respondent approached the Division Bench by filing Letters Patent Appeal No.2035 of 2011, challenging the interim orders dated 8.8.2011 and 6.9.2011. Such Letters Patent Appeal came to be dismissed by the Division Bench by order dated 7.12.2011, requiring that the amount be deposited within one month from the said date.
4. It appears that the original petitioner- present applicant withdrew the main petition itself on 12.12.2011. Thereupon, the applicant approached the Division Bench and sought review of the order dated 7.12.2011 passed in Letters Patent Appeal. Such review application came to be disposed of by order dated 12.1.2012 in following manner:-
"1. Though the board has been revised, neither in the first call nor in the second call, learned counsel Mr.Sachin D.Vasavada appearing for respondent no.1. is present.
2. This Review Application has been filed against the interim order passed in writ petition being Special Civil Application No.10347 of 2011. The learned Single Judge had granted two interim orders dated 8.8.2011 and 6.9.2011 which were challenged in this Appeal. The Appeal was dismissed by us on 7.12.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner-respondent has withdrawn the Special Civil Application. The effect of withdrawing the writ petition would be that interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge would not survive. Therefore, the Letters Patent Appeal could not be dismissed by this Court by issuing direction.
3. For the aforesaid reason, this Miscellaneous Civil Application is allowed and we recall the order dated 7.12.2011 passed by us in Letters Patent Appeal and dismiss the Appeal only on the ground that the writ petition has been withdrawn by the respondent before the learned Single Judge. Therefore, nothing survives to be decided in this Letters Patent Appeal. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
5. We are of the opinion that by virtue of the applicant withdrawing the main petition, namely Special Civil Application No.10347 of 2011, and by virtue of the interpretation of the Division Bench in its order dated 12.1.2012 of such withdrawal, the contempt proceedings would not survive. The Division Bench was of the opinion that the petitioner having withdrawn the Special Civil Application, its effect would be that the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge would not survive. It is on this count that the Division Bench while allowing the review application of the present respondent dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal on the ground that the writ petition was withdrawn by the original petitioner and that therefore, nothing would survive to be decided in the Letters Patent Appeal.
6. At this stage, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that he was not present when the Division Bench passed its order dated 12.1.2012 and that the applicant may seek modification of such an order.
7. Insofar as contempt proceedings are concerned, we do not find any reason to survive such proceedings in view of the developments noted above. This is without prejudice to the rights of the applicant to pursue its remedies. The application is disposed of accordingly. Notice is discharged.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (C.L.
SONI, J.) omkar Top