1. Though served, none is present for the respondent no. 1.
2. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner.
3. The petitioner-workman has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Collector, Mehsana dated 2nd March, 1995 and order passed by respondent Nagarpalika dated 3rd August, 1995.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute and the matter was referred to the Labour Court at Kalol by way of Reference LC No. 54 of 1990. During the proceedings, by way of negotiation, a settlement was arrived at between the parties and pursuant to said settlement between the parties, petitioner put into permanent cadre with effect from 1.5.1994 and petitioner was not entitled to claim any past wages prior to 1.5.1994 and accordingly, Administrator passed an order on 31.5.1994 to the effect that the petitioner was considered to be in continuous service with effect from 29.11.1987 but was not entitled to get any difference of wages prior to 1.5.1994. In view of said development, the Presiding Officer of Labour Court, Kalol passed an award on 22.6.1994 in Reference No. 54 of 1990. It is the case of the petitioner that the District Collector, Mehsana on 2.3.1995 passed an order and set aside eight resolutions passed by Administrator of Nagarpalika and on the basis of said order passed by the District Collector, the Nagarpalika passed an order by which the petitioner was ordered to function as Daily Wager. It is the case of the petitioner that the District Collector and Nagarpalika have passed the orders without following due procedure of law and in flagrant breach of principles of natural justice as before passing the impugned orders, petitioner was not being heard at all.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court reported in (i) 2001(2) GLR 1115 in case of B.G. Sapariya, Chairman, Development Board, Mahuva Municipality Vs. Pradipkumar Pujari, Collector, Bhavnagar,
(ii) 2000 (4) GCD 3222 (Guj) in case of Maniben Navabhai & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & ors,
(iii) unreported decision dated 30.01.2006 passed in Special Civil Application No. 1170 of 2004, (iv) unreported decision dated 11.12.2006 in Special Civil Application No. 649 of 2004, contended that admittedly no hearing was granted and on this limited ground, the petition is required to be disposed of. Shri Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner does not press any other grounds at this stage with a liberty to take out appropriate ground in case of difficulties in future and submitted that this petition may be confined to challenge to the order of Collector and Nagarpalika.
6. This court is of the view that, admittedly, no opportunity was granted to the petitioner being heard before passing the impugned orders and therefore, on that sole ground, the petition is allowed and impugned orders in this petition are quashed and set aside. Since the Court is setting aside the orders only on the ground of non-observance of principles of natural justice, I do not wish to make any observations on the merits of the case and disposal of this petition will not come in the way of the Collector in taking appropriate action in accordance with law without being influence by the order of this court. In case, if the Collector pass any order against the petitioner, the same will not be implemented for a period of four weeks from the passing of the order so as to enable the petitioner to take appropriate action. Rule is made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) pallav