AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Barot, learned advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Sejal K. Mandavia, learned advocate for the respondent.
In present petition the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that:- "8 (A) This Hon''ble Court be pleased to admit and allow this petition. The Hon''ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, and issue order or direction to the respondent Corporation to reinstate the petitioner with back wages along with all consequential benefits."
From the relief prayed for by the petitioner it becomes clear that the petitioner has filed present petition for execution and implementation of award dated 5.8.2008 passed by learned Industrial Tribunal in Approval Application (IT) No. 340 of 2006 in Reference (IT) No. 37 of 2000.
By the said award learned Industrial Tribunal disallowed and rejected the approval application filed by the Corporation under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Present petitioner is the workman who was concerned in the said Approval Application No. 340 of 2006 wherein award dated 14.8.2006 came to be passed. It was with reference to present petitioner that the corporation had sought approval in respect of its order dated 14.8.2006 whereby Corporation terminated service of the claimant.
By the impugned award learned Industrial Tribunal did not approve the order and rejected the approval application. 5.1 Therefore, now the claimant has prayed that the corporation should be directed to reinstate him.
Ms. Mandavia, learned advocate for the respondent corporation submitted that the very same award i.e. award dated 5.8.2008 passed by learned Industrial Tribunal in Approval Application No. 340 of 2006 is challenged by the Corporation in writ petition i.e. Special Civil Application No. 4989 of 2009. She further submitted that in the said petition the operation and implementation of said award is stayed by this Court vide order dated 15.3.2010.
In view of the fact that the award on strength of which the petitioner-claimant filed present petition is challenged in separate petition by the employer and in view of the fact that the implementation and operation of the said award is stayed, relief prayed for in this petition cannot be granted.
Besides this, even otherwise the direction prayed for by the claimant cannot be granted because according to learned advocate for the claimant, the claimant has already attained age of superannuation.
For both the reasons, the petition does not deserve to be entertained. Actually in view of the petition filed by the corporation, this petition is rendered infructous and the petition does not deserve to be entertained.
For above mentioned reasons, this petition i.e. Special Civil Application No. 14240 of 2008 is disposed. Rule is discharged. Ad-interim / interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith. Orders accordingly.