Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 296 (GUJ)

Rajendra R Vaghela v. State of Gujarat

2020-02-17

SONIA GOKANI

body2020
ORDER : 1. The entire group of petitions since contain identical questions of law and facts, they being decided by common order. The facts are drawn from Special Civil Application No.3635 of 2020 for the purpose of adjudication. 2. The petitioner herein was appointed as a lift man with respondent No.5, which is a construction company and is operating in the name and style of Sajal Realities Pvt., Ltd., having its office at 10 & 11 Floor, Safal Profitaire, Corporate Road, Opp. AUDA Garden, Prahladnagar. 3. The petitioner was required to serve as per his post and as the company's projects were going on different places, he was bound to serve at different place. The petitioner was posted at respondent No.4's office as a lift man with the monthly salary fixed in appointment letter. Respondent No.4 is a Commercial Scheme Developed by respondent No.5. On completion of the said commercial scheme, the same has been handed over to its members for administration. However, the petitioner continued to serve as a lift man with many other persons. 4. According to the petitioner, he was terminated in the month of December, 2008 from his services as a lift man without serving any legal notice or without any prior intimation and no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, this termination is not in accordance with law. The petitioner, therefore, approached the original employer at his office and reply given by respondent No.5 was that it was not responsible for their services any longer since administration had been handed over to respondent No.4 society which was a cooperative society limited. Moreover, the petitioner since was appointed by respondent No.5, respondent No.4 refused to take any responsibility of the continuation of the service. 5. The petitioner approached Gujarat State Legal Services Authority for getting the Legal Aid in as much as all the petitioners have 100% vision disability. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 were called upon however, respondent No.4 appeared and replied that it is not fall under the definition of industry as defined in the Industrial Dispute Act. 6. It appears that respondent No.5 moved this Court and preferred the Special Civil Application No.1019 of 2019 with Special Civil Application No.1023 of 2019. This Court vide its order dated 21.01.2019 granted adinterim relief in favour of respondent No.5. 7. 6. It appears that respondent No.5 moved this Court and preferred the Special Civil Application No.1019 of 2019 with Special Civil Application No.1023 of 2019. This Court vide its order dated 21.01.2019 granted adinterim relief in favour of respondent No.5. 7. The petitioner aggrieved by the fact that no outcome is possible despite the best of the endeavorers by the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority choses to approach the Labour Court where all the respondents have been made the parties. Since there is a delay in the Labour Court in hearing the Reference (LDR) No.369 of 2019 and other Reference, they have approached this Court seeking following reliefs: “11... A. This Hon'ble Court may be please to admit this Special Civil Application in the interest of justice. B. Allow the present Special Civil Application by issuing writ of mandamus or any other writ in nature of mandamus directing the Ld. Labour Court to hear the Reference Case No. LDR No.369 of 2019 as expedite as possible on humanitarian ground in the interest of justice. C. The Hon'ble Court may also be pleased to pass any other and further order/s in the interest of justice and as thought fit and proper and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 8. On issuance of the notice, learned Assistant Government Pleader appears for respondent Nos.1, 2, and 3. For respondent No.4, Learned senior advocate, Mr.Devang Nanavati appears for Nanavati & Nanavati and for respondent No.5 Mr.Parth Bhatt appears. 9. According to learned Assistant Government Pleader, he cannot have any feasible objection to the matters being expedited if they made any such request before the Trial Court. He has further urged that this request could have been made before the Court concerned instead of approaching this Court for this prayer. 10. Learned senior advocate, Mr.Devang Nanavati appearing with learned advocate, Mr.Vandan Baxi has urged that there is no requirement for them to approach this Court as the proceedings are going on at requisite pace before the Labour Court and at the same time, the private respondents have no objection to the Court directing any expeditious hearing considering the very circumstances of the petitioner. 11. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, Mr.Nikunj Kanara appearing for the State, who has urged that the Court may pass an appropriate order considering the overall facts and circumstances. 12. 11. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, Mr.Nikunj Kanara appearing for the State, who has urged that the Court may pass an appropriate order considering the overall facts and circumstances. 12. Having thus heard learned advocates on both the sides and also on due consideration of the materials, this Court notices that there are no details provided as to what was the requirement for the petitioner to approach this Court instead of making a request to the concerned Labour Court for expeditious hearing. Considering the plight of all the petitioners of 100% disability and this would have surely weighed with the Court in expediting the matter, the private respondents have no objection to the matters being decided expeditiously without their seeking any adjournment on any of the conditions. 13. Resultantly, these petitions are allowed instead of sending the petitioner to very pillar to post. It is being directed that the Court concerned shall look into the physical disability which is 100% and the plight along with the cause from which they have approached and expedite the entire group of matters. It is expected in the future that the petitioners firstly shall approach the Labour Court for ventilating their grievance then in the event of they are not being successful, they always can come before this Court. 14. Be that as it may, for now all these petitions are allowed. Let the same be expedited as far as possibly within a period of 06 months. From the history of the cause which has been produced before this Court of the Labour Court, it is noticed that the last date was 05.02.2020 for the evidence of second party, which is now scheduled on 08.04.2020. Considering the time limit, which has been granted in wake of very peculiar circumstances existing on record, the parties are given the liberty to make a request to the Labour Court for early hearing of the matter, which shall consider in wake of specific order passed by this Court. 15. Considering the time limit, which has been granted in wake of very peculiar circumstances existing on record, the parties are given the liberty to make a request to the Labour Court for early hearing of the matter, which shall consider in wake of specific order passed by this Court. 15. So far as the dispute between the parties are concerned, though being conscious of the fact that the adjudication shall be done before the competent forum and both the sides are already before the Labour Court for the said purpose, where they all are permitted to raise respective aspects available under the law, it will be in the fitness of things to propose the mediation between both the sides, let the same be undertaken by the High Court Mediation Centre. It is supposed that the Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Authority himself shall undertake this mediation. The same shall be coordinated by intimating the learned advocates on both the sides on their mobile numbers, which are as follow: (1) For respondent No.4, Ld. Adv., Mr.Vandan Baxi 97253 68205 (2) For respondent No.5, Ld. Adv., Mr. Parth Bhatt 98255 21622 16. As far as possible the same shall be undertaken within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the outcome of which shall be made known to the concerned Court undertaking the Industrial Dispute within a fortnight thereafter. This process shall not hamper the proceeding before the Industrial Court. This disposal shall not come in the way of either side in raising their respective legal as well as factual aspects. It is clarified that this Court has not entered into the merits of the matters. 17. Registry shall accept the vakalatpatra of learned advocate, Mr.Vandan Baxi for respondent No.4 Nanavati & Nanavati and learned advocate, Mr.Parth Bhatt for respondent No.5.