(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA)
1. The appellants have a genuine grievance without a remedy. While the appellants herein have filed their petition in the year 2002 it is pending and listed from time to time for hearing, and while even separate successive orders have been made fixing the petition for final hearing, in fact, it does not appear to have been heard on merits for ten long years. Learned counsel Mr.Shalin Mehta was partly justified in submitting that the previous decision of the Division Bench of this Court, which was rendered in May 2001 and which has been not interfered when carried to the Supreme Court, would become infructuous on account of the petition of the appellants based upon aforesaid order were not heard, even as many of the 31 petitioners are likely to retire in the near future without receiving any benefit of the litigation in which they have already succeeded since ten years.
2. However, interlocutory order dated 14.3.2012 in the appellants' Civil Application for fixing date of final hearing of the main petition is not a judgment from which Letters Patent Appeal would lie. It appears from the impugned order that the Court of learned Single Judge in-charge of the main matter is also facing heavy board and number of matters on the cause list which may be pending for a longer duration.
3. Under the circumstances, the appeal is disposed as not maintainable only with the observation that as and when main petition of the appellants is listed before appropriate Court in the regular course or at the instance of the appellants, it may be given due priority in view of the grievance of the appellants, pendency of the matter for 11 years and number of employees involved in the litigation. It is indeed regrettable that matters involving or affecting the livelihood of lowly paid employees could not be attended by this Court for as long as ten years.
(D.H.Waghela, J.) (Mohinder Pal, J.) *malek Top