Gujarat Court January 1999 Judgments
Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Vs. Regional P.F. Commis ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-29-1999
Reported in: (2000)GLR398; (1999)IILLJ844Guj
R. Balia, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the orders dated December 1, 1997 and April 20, 1998 issued by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ahmedabad and Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner, Ahmedabad respectively. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent-Regional Provident Fund Commissioner urged that since the appellate authority has been constituted before whom the appeal lay against order under Section 7-A, the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy to challenge the order. The petitioner has not deliberately pursued the alternative remedy and therefore this Court should not interfere in this case to bye pass the alternative remedy available to the petitioner. Attention was also invited of the Court to the fact that petitioner knew about the existence of alternative remedy soon after the impugned order was made and he was advised to pursue alternative remedy. It was also urged that in fact review application has bee...
Tag this Judgment!Vallabhvidyanagar Mazdoor Union Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-28-1999
Reported in: (1999)1GLR613
B.C. Patel, J.1. These Appeals are preferred by Vallabh Vidyanagar Mazdoor Union, Ahmedabad and Akhil Bharatiya Audyogik Kamdar Sangh, Surat against the common judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Applications Nos.738 of 1998 and 4773 of 1998. In all, three matters were heard together by the learned Single Judge, who held that Annexure 'E' to Special Civil Application No.4773 of 1998 being illegal and invalid, must be quashed and set aside and allowed the petitions being Special Civil Applications Nos.4773 of 1998 and 4810 of 1998. So far as Special Civil Application No.738 of 1998 is concerned, the learned Single Judge held that the same is not tenable in law and it must be dismissed.2. So far as Letters Patent Appeal No.1080 of 1998 is concerned, it arises out of Special Civil application No.738 of 1998. The petitioner prayed for a direction to the respondents nos.1 and 2 to hold election in order to find out as to who represents the majority of the workmen...
Tag this Judgment!Abdulsattar I. Shaikh Vs. Executive Engineer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-28-1999
Reported in: (2000)GLR311
ORDER:1. Rule returnable in February, 1993.2. M/s. Trivedi, Gupta & Dave waive service of Rule on behalf of respondents.3. The petitioner who was temporarily appointed as English Typist has challenged the order of his termination from service. The order of termination is already implemented. It is the case of the respondent Corporation that they have no power to appoint and the entire staff of the corporation is adjusted either by employees of the State Govt sent on deputation or sent on transfer. Some 6/7 Typists/Stenographers who are rendered surplus in State Govt. service are required to be accommodated and out of said six persons one person is to be accommodated in the respondent - Corporation. In view of the order passed by the Ld. single judge the respondent corporation is prevented from making any appointment and, therefore, the work of the corporation also suffers. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that no interim relief as prayed for could be granted and the ad-i...
Tag this Judgment!Navinchandra Laxmidas Mandavia Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-1999
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ509Guj
B.C. Patel, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 3007 of 1998 on April 24, 1998. 2. This appeal is required to be rejected on the ground of misleading the Court inasmuch as the learned advocate at the initial stage submitted that the workman was already reinstated in service and therefore the respondent State was required to pay the salary in accordance with the provisions contained in the Minimum Wages Act. 3. We find that annexure-B to the present proceedings at page 15 is the order dated July 11, 1997 passed by the Competent Authority, wherein it is specifically mentioned that the State Government presented Special Civil Application No. 5709 of 1996 in the High Court. The High Court has passed appropriate orders, and the workman is to be paid salaries as per the provisions contained in Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. If that order is read in detail it becomes very clear that it was kno...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. R.R. Lalaji
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-22-1999
Reported in: (1999)2GLR398
S.K. Keshote, J.1. This Revision application arises from the order dated 24.7.97 of 6th Extra Assistant Judge, Vadodara in Civil Misc. Application No.253/97 under which it granted exparte interim injunction directing the respondent petitioners to maintain status quo in relation to the post in dispute till further orders. The facts of the case are as follows:-1. The plaintiff respondent filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in the court of Civil Judge (SD) on Vadodara on 10.2.97. In the suit he has prayed for the following reliefs:-a. Your Lordships may be pleased to call for the records and proceedings of Misc. Civil Appeal No.253/97 from the court of learned District Judge, Vadodara;b. Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the order passed by the learned district Judge on 24.7.97 in Misc. Civil Appeal No.253/97;c. during pendency and final disposal of this petition your Lordships may be pleased to stay the order passed by the learned Dist. Judge on 24.7....
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Workmen of State Transpor ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-1999
Reported in: (1999)IILLJ1363Guj
R. Balia, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Rathod who has appeared for the caveator respondent No. 1 representing the four workmen, namely, Mukesh Karsanbhai Vora, Tarun Kumar J. Acharya, Dinesh D. Vaghela and Bakul G. Maru. 2. The petition is against the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat, Rajkot dated June 5, 1998. A reference was made to the Tribunal at the instance of respondents whether the four workmen out of whom except D. D. Vaghela are working on the establishment of the petitioner for more than five years and all the four workmen have completed 240 days service in the calendar year, in these circumstances, whether they are entitled to be made permanent and other benefits attached to such status Out of the four workmen, two workmen, namely, T. J. Acharya and M. K. Vora have worked as wiremen whereas D. D. Vaghela and B. G. Maru have worked as helper wiremen. The order of reference also speaks that these workmen are qualified for the post. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Pravinsinh Dolatsinh Rana Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-1999
Reported in: (1999)2GLR690
ORDER:Rule. In so far as Interim relief is concerned, heard. It is submitted by Mr. Nigam Shukla, ld. A.G.P. for the State that every two years the process of selection by District Panchayat Service Selection Committee is being undertaken and now when the same is undertaken the petitioner's case will be considered in case he happens to move an Application. The petitioner had missed the earlier process because he unfortunately did not come across the public advertisement for appearing in the selection process. It is therefore expected that the next process in all probability must be undertaken in the year 1993-94. It will be open to the petitioner to apply at such process and the said application shall be taken into consideration in accordance with the Rules.Mr. Nigam Shukla, ld. A.G.P. for Respondent no. 1 waives service of Rule, whereas Mr. A.R. Dave, ld. Advocate for Respondents No. 2, 3 & 4 waives service of Rule.It is further directed that if there is any vacancy available the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Narendrakumar V. Parikh Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-18-1999
Reported in: (1999)2GLR1453
M. R. Calla, J. 1. This Special Civil Application is directed against the order dated 19-6-1991, i.e., Annexure 'F' annexed with the petition, passed by the order of the Governor and issued under the signatures of the Secretary to the Government, Social Welfare Department, under clause (aa)(i)(1) of the Rule 161 (1) of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959 whereby the petitioner was made to retire from the post of Social Welfare Officer (Training) at once in the interest of public service by payment of three months pay and allowances with the further mention that the inquiry pending against the petitioner shall continue under the relevant Rules of B.C.S.R. even after his retirement. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed on 5-2-1965 as Promotion Officer, Remand Home in the Social Welfare Department. According to the petitioner he was confirmed on this post later on. On 25-9-1965 the petitioner was made in-charge Probation Officer and according to the petitioner he was also confirmed...
Tag this Judgment!Milan Cinema and anr. Vs. Maganlal Nathalal Mistry
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-18-1999
Reported in: [1999(82)FLR308]; (1999)ILLJ654Guj
ORDERR. Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The only question that arises for consideration in this case in which the petitioner challenges the order of Labour Court dated June 19, 1998 in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) is whether the Labour Court could make the order in question in exercise of the jurisdiction. The respondent has filed an application under Section 33-C(2) claiming himself to be the workmen of the petitioner cinema and raising a demand for computing dearness allowance, overtime working, and the bonus payable to him since 1982 until April 30, 1983 when the application was filed. Petitioner denied the existence of very relationship of the employer-employee between the two. The first question which the Labour Court addresses itself for determination is whether the workmen is able to prove that he was working in the establishment of the opponent. Where the question is to determine about the existence of relationship between the parties...
Tag this Judgment!Ranip Nagarpalika Vs. Aec Ltd. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-16-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Guj275
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. As in all these special civil applications the common question of facts and law involved and as such are being taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common order.2. The facts of the case are taken from the special civil application No. 4289/96.3. The grievance of the petitioners, who are Nagar Palika of different places in the State of Gujarat is against the inaction on the part of the respondents in not implementing and acting as per the Government resolution dated 15-7-95 whereby it has been resolved to continue the benefit to the petitioner municipalities herein for the years 1994-95 to 1997-98 on the same line as it was being enjoyed by the then Nagar Panchayat and for grant of 50% of the benefit for different years as given in the special civil applications.4. Prior to this for area of Ranip, there was Ranip Nagar Panchayat. On 15-4-94 Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993 came into force and as per this provision, Ranip Nagar Panchayat was conver...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »