Court : Gujarat
Decided on : May-10-2011
1. The present controversy relates to an important question `whether an intra-court appeal (Letters Patent Appeal) under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is maintainable against an order passed by a learned Single Judge of the same High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India while exercising such power in its criminal jurisdiction'.2. There being conflicting views of two Division Benches of this Court, and some ambiguity whether there can be separate civil and criminal jurisdiction with regard to the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, cases were referred to Larger Bench for its decision.3. The facts giving rise to these appeals in brief are as follows: L.P.A. NO.335/2010: The State of Gujarat preferred a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, in Special Criminal Application No. 989 of 2009 before this Court against one Nitinbhai Shantilal Bhagat and another (appellants in Letters Patent Appeal No. 335 of 2001) challenging the judgement and order...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : May-10-2011
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Dipak C. Raval for petitioner. He submitted that respondent was appointed as daily wager driver in Primary Health Center when there was additional work available. Respondent workman was relieved from work as work was not available. Therefore, respondent raised an industrial dispute under machinery of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which was referred to for adjudication to Labour Court, Surendranagar, registered as Reference (LCS) No. 24 of 2004. Statement of claim was filed by workman against which written statement was filed by petitioner wherein it was stated that appointment of respondent was casual in nature and respondent was not appointed through any selection procedure and respondent also not supplied his consent letter to work as and when work was available. Labour Court, Surendranagar passed award on 24^th March, 2010 and granted reinstatement. According to learned advocate Mr. Raval for petitioner, Medical Officer, Primary Health Center, Surendran...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Oct-04-2011
Gujarat High Court Case Information System BODY {SCROLLBAR-FACE-COLOR: #d4d0c8; SCROLLBAR-HIGHLIGHT-COLOR: #808080; SCROLLBAR-SHADOW-COLOR: #d4d0c8; SCROLLBAR-ARROW-COLOR: #ffffff; scrollbar-dark-shadow-color: #ffffff} SPAN.searchword { background-color:yellow; } function loadSearchHighlight() { var chkParamC = "txtSearch" if (chkParamC == "txtSearch") { SearchHighlight(); document.searchhi.h.value = searchhi_string; if( location.hash.length > 1 ) location.hash = location.hash; } } Print SCA/14791/20117/7ORDERINTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADSPECIALCIVIL APPLICATION No. 14791 of2011=========================================================LALITABENWD/O RAMCHANDRA CHAUHAN & 2 - PetitionersVersusSTATEOF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondents=========================================================Appearance :MRUDAYAN P VYAS forPetitioners : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2,1.2.3 MS. ARCHANA C. RAVAL LD. AGPfor Respondent : 1None for Respondent :2===================================================...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : May-10-2011
1. Heard learned senior advocate Mr. BA Desai with learned advocate Mr. Suthar for learned advocate Mr. NK Majmudar appearing on behalf of petitioner IPCL Employees Association through General Secretary, learned Advocate General Mr. KB Trivedi with learned advocate Mr. KD Gandhi appearing for Nanavati Association for respondent no. 1 on Caveat.2. The present petition was heard by this Court on 2/5/2011. Thereafter, matter was kept reserved for judgment. In this petition, petitioner Association has challenged award passed by Industrial Tribunal no. 1, Baroda exh 26 in reference IT no. 95/2009 dated 7/2/2011. The Industrial Tribunal no. 1, Baroda has accepted settlement arrived between respondent no. 1 Reliance Industries Ltd, respondent no. 2 IPCL Employees Union and respondent no. 3 Petrochemicals Employees Union vide exh 14 and found to be just, proper, fair and reasonable. Therefore, in terms of aforesaid settlement exh 14, award has been passed and disposed of reference in terms of ...
Tag this Judgment!