Gujarat Court November 2007 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Tourism Corporation of Gujarat Ltd. Vs. Kalu Valji Jethwa
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-23-2007
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR408]; (2008)1GLR12; (2008)ILLJ985Guj; 2009(2)SLJ37(NULL); 2008(2)AIRKarR227(FB)(Guj)
K.S. Jhaveri, J.1. The question referred A Division Bench of this Court has referred the following question for our consideration:Whether a part-time employee is a 'workman' and whether he is entitled for all the benefits which are being extended to regular employees.2. Factual matrix2.1 The appellant herein - Tourism Corporation of Gujarat Ltd ('TCGL' or 'the appellant') is a Government Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956.The respondent herein was appointed by the appellant Corporation as a part-time sweeper in its Junagadh Hotel for a fixed period upto December 1987. Therefore on 31st December 1987 his services came to an end. In the year 1996, the respondent raised an industrial dispute, contending that his services had been illegally terminated. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Junagadh which was registered as Reference (LCJ) No. 57 of 1996. After hearing the parties, by award dated 24th May 2001, the Labour Court directed the appellant herein to reinstate...
Anwar HussaIn Satar and 14 ors. Vs. Gujarat Maritime Board and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-22-2007
Reported in: 2008GLH(1)34
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Rule. Service of rule is waived by learned Advocate Mr. Nayak on behalf of M/s. Trivedi & Gupta for the original petitioner. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and with consent of both the learned Advocates, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. Heard Mrs. Vasavdatta Bhatt for the applicants original respondents - workmen and Mr. Nayak, learned Advocate for M/s. Trivedi & Gupta for the present opponents-original petitioners-employer.3. In the main matter being Special Civil Application NO. 8063 of 2004, the petitioners are challenging the award made by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in Reference (IT) NO. 160 of 1991 dated 29th November, 2003 wherein the Industrial Tribunal Rajkot has partly allowed reference and granted reinstatement in favour of the present applicants being Safai Kamdar on the basis of original seniority of the year 1982 and not granted any amount of back wages for an interim period. Services of the present applicants were te...
Dhirajlal G. Vadgama Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-22-2007
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR147]
K.M. Thaker, J.1. The petitioner, who was working as a constable in the service of respondents, has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order dated 16.12.2002 whereby the concerned authority rejected the claim of the petitioner for bonus for the period from 1993 to 2002.2. This petition has arisen in the following factual background narrated in the petition:2.1 The petitioner joined the service of the respondent' Railways in 1971. Subsequently in 1992, he opted for voluntary retirement by an application dated 2.10.1992. However, after about two months, he changed his mind and by another application dated 11.12.1992 he sought to withdraw his application for voluntary retirement. As per the petitioner's case, the application for the request for withdrawing the application for voluntary retirement was submitted before it was accepted by respondent-authority, but the request was rejected by the respondent-authorities on 14.12.1992 and he was relieved f...
Ajay Kiritkant Ghelani and ors. Vs. Mathureshnagar Co-operative Housin ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-01-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Guj44; (2008)1GLR213
H.N. Devani, J.1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 16th February, 2002 passed by the Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal (Annexure-I) in Revision Application No. 41 of 2002 as well as order dated 22nd January, 2002 passed by the Board of Nominees, Surat in Lavad Case No. 376 of 1990 (Annexure-C).2. The facts stated briefly are that the Respondent No. 1, Mathureshnagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the respondent society) had instituted Lavad Suit No. 376 of 1990 before the Board of Nominees seeking a declaration that the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are bogus members of the society, holding and occupying Plot Nos. 40 and 41, respectively. The respondent society also prayed for interim injunction restraining the petitioners from making further construction over the respective plots in the society. It appears that an ex-parte injunction order was passed in fav...
Atulkumar Bhagwat Prasad Bhatt Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-01-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Guj57; 2008GLH(1)386
ORDERAkshay H. Mehta, J.1. Rule in the matters in which it is not issued. Mr. Sunit Shah, Ld. GP and Mr. Krunal Pandya, Ld. AGP waive service of rule on behalf of respondents.Since in all these petitions a common challenge to notification/resolution bearing No. GMC/1 2006-1548/C dated 22-5-2007 issued under the signature of the Joint Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, Government of Gujarat has been made, they are heard together and now they are being disposed of by this common CAV judgment.2. The petitioners are practicing as Ayurvedic doctors in the State of Gujarat. According to them, they have obtained degree to practice as required under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 ('IMCC Act' for short) and they have also obtained registration certificates issued by the medical institutions/board of the State of Bihar and in two cases of State of Madhya Pradesh, they are eligible to practice Indian medicine in the State of Gujarat. It is their say that they are doing ...
Amjadali Gazanfarali Bhakhari Vs. the Custodian of Evacuee Properties
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-01-2007
Reported in: 2008GLH(1)22; (2008)1GLR483
ORDERY.R. Meena, C.J.1. Three Civil Applications have been filed in Misc. Civil Application No. 2706 of 2006 in Special Civil Application No. 15239 of 2006. The main petition i.e. Special Civil Application No. 15239 of 2006 was filed by one Shri Nirav Vinodchandra Shah, an Advocate by profession under Article 226 of the Constitution of India branding the said writ petition as Public Interest Litigation (SPIL' for short) invoking fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In the above petition, it was mainly contended that the petitioner is one of the residents of Vasana village of city of Ahmedabad and holding property in Vasana village. According to him, it is personal Inam village as per record of rights and by way of public interest litigation, the petitioner wanted to draw the attention of this Court against arbitrariness, high-handedness and illegality of the respondents whereby the claim of the property viz. the entire Vasana village viz. Survey No....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›