Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2012
  6. /
  7. January

Gujarat vs P

High Court Of Gujarat|09 May, 2012

JUDGMENT / ORDER

(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA)
1. The applicants have made this application in the pending civil application in a pending letters patent appeal, mainly with the prayer to vacate the ex-parte ad-interim relief granted in Civil Application No.5470 of 2012 by another Division Bench of this Court. That order dated 01.05.2012 in C.A.No.5470 of 2012 reads as under:
"Heard learned Advocate Mr.T.R.Mishra for the applicants.
RULE.
NOTICE as to interim relief returnable on 14.06.2012. Ad interim relief in terms of para-3 (A).
Direct service is permitted"
2. While making the above order, on the same date the appeal has been admitted, recording reasons as under:
"Heard learned Advocate Mr.T.R.Mishra for the appellants - original petitioners.
2. Learned Advocate for the appellants invited attention of the Court to order dated 25.04.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge is pleased to admit the petition, but did not grant interim relief of staying the transfer.
2.1 Learned Advocate for the appellants invited attention of the Court to Annexure-III, page No.127 of the petition to bring home the fact that the appellants - original petitioners along with others petitioners are the protected workmen and the transfer which is challenged in the petition (Annexure-Am page No.11 to the petition) dated 03.01.2012 is passed right at the time when the process of determining the strength of the union for collective bargaining had started. Learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that by not granting the interim relief, the petition of the petitioners will be rendered infractuous.
3. ADMIT."
3. It is clear from the above record that not only that the L.P.A. is admitted but ad-interim relief is granted in the civil application of the appellants only upto the returnable date, i.e. 14.06.2012. Thus, the matter of grant of interim relief is supposed to be heard on 14.06.2012. However, by way of the present application for vacating that ad-interim relief, the applicant has sought to argue the whole appeal on merits so as to justify vacation of the ad-interim relief. Therefore, it was suggested that hearing of the appeal itself may be fixed on an earlier date, particularly because the appeal itself appears to have been preferred from the order of learned single Judge refusing grant of interim relief.
4. However, learned counsel Mr.Dave has insisted upon arguing at length on merits of the appeal and insisted upon citing three judgments to press his argument that ad-interim relief ought not to have been granted, that it ought to be vacated right now, and the appeal itself may be heard right now because the appeal could not be allowed in any case. In support of his arguments, learned counsel Mr.Dave relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal [2004 (3) GLH 317] and the observations made by the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Ram Sukhi Devi [(2005) 9 SCC 733] as also the oral judgment dated 10.10.2011 of Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.1075 of 2003. He vehemently argued on the basis of the documents and annexures and voluminous record filed in the main appeal.
5. Learned counsel Mr.T.R.Mishra, appearing for the opponents herein, submitted that the applicant had the consistent record of making punitive and vindictive transfers due to which the affected workmen have been repeatedly forced to approach this Court. He relied upon two earlier orders of this Court in SCA Nos.11214 of 2009 and 1779 of 2003 as also order dated 25.6.2009 in SCA No.2948 of 2009. Learned counsel Mr.Mishra submitted that interference with the orders of transfer issued by the applicant in the aforesaid matters has been upheld and he has no objection to the main appeal being heard at the earliest opportunity.
6. In the above facts and circumstances, while the application in which the order granting ad-interim relief is itself pending before this Court, we deem it improper and unnecessary to entertain the present application and, therefore, it is rejected.
Sd/-
( D.H.Waghela, J.) Sd/-
( Mohinder Pal, J.) (KMG Thilake) Top
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Gujarat vs P

Court

High Court Of Gujarat

JudgmentDate
09 May, 2012