Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 175 (GUJ)

DAKOR TEMPLE COMMITTEE v. ASHOK RAMLAL PANDYA

2007-03-15

ANIL R.DAVE, H.N.DEVANI

body2007
ANIL R. DAVE, J. ( 1 ) THE order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 3746/2007 dated 9th February, 2007 has been challenged in this Letters Patent Appeal. ( 2 ) THE learned Single Judge rejected the petition as it had been filed at an interlocutory stage. The appellant had raised preliminary objection before the Industrial Tribunal that the respondent was not a workman and the appellant was not an industry and, therefore, the proceedings were not maintainable before the Tribunal. ( 3 ) AS the Tribunal passed an interim order dated 22nd January, 2007 to the effect that the preliminary issues raised by the appellant were to be decided finally alongwith all other issues, the appellant was aggrieved by the said order and challenging the said order, the aforestated petition was filed by the appellant. The said petition has been rejected by the learned Single Judge as it was filed at an interlocutory stage. ( 4 ) WE have gone through the impugned order delivered by the learned Single Judge and have also looked into the facts of the case. The proceedings had been initiated under the provisions of Section 33a of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Tribunal. So, some proceedings had been pending before the Tribunal before the proceedings in question had been initiated. ( 5 ) IN our opinion, several disputed questions of fact and law were to be decided by the Tribunal and, therefore, the Tribunal decided that the aforestated issues should be decided alongwith all other issues. ( 6 ) IT is also pertinent to note that in the earlier proceedings, this Court, in Special Civil Application No. 1789/2006, by an order dated 10th February, 2006, had already given a direction to the Industrial Tribunal that after considering the evidence which might be led by the parties, it should dispose of the proceedings within a period of one year from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court. Of course, the said period had been extended thereafter by three months as requested by the learned advocates. ( 7 ) LOOKING to the aforestated facts, when a direction has already been given by this Court to dispose of the proceedings as soon as possible, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge was justified in not interfering with the matter at an interlocutory stage. The appeal is therefore dismissed. ( 7 ) LOOKING to the aforestated facts, when a direction has already been given by this Court to dispose of the proceedings as soon as possible, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge was justified in not interfering with the matter at an interlocutory stage. The appeal is therefore dismissed. ( 8 ) AT this stage, the learned advocates have submitted that looking to the facts of the case, it may not be possible for the Industrial Tribunal to decide the case as directed by this Court within the period granted by this Court in Special Civil Application 1789/2006 and extended thereafter, and, therefore, they have prayed for further time so that the entire proceedings can be disposed of by the Tribunal. Looking to the facts of the case, in the interest of justice, and as requested by the learned advocates, further period of three months is granted to the Tribunal for deciding the case. ( 9 ) IN view of dismissal of the appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and, it is, therefore, disposed of accordingly.