High CourtsDivision Bench(2011) 09 GUJ CK 0148

Maka Lazar vs Kandla Dock Labour Board and Another

Gujarat High Court · Decided on 20 September 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
V.M. Sahai, J · K. S. Jhaveri, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1155 of 2003 in Special Civil Application No. 4947 of 2003

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 348 words

V.M. Sahai, J.—We have heard Mr. J.D. Ajmera, learned advocate for the Appellant and Mr. Dhaval D. Vyas, learned advocate for the Respondents.

2.

Mr. Dhaval Vyas has produced before us letter dated 14.03.2011 addressed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Adipur (Kutch) on behalf of Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment to the Chairman, Kandla Port Trust, Gandhidham (Kutch) stating therein that industrial disputes raised by Transport and Dock Workers Union against Kandla Port Trust on various issues are pending for conciliation before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Adipur (Kutch).

3.

Mr. Vyas states that the present matter, therefore, also requires to be sent to the office of Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Adipur (Kutch) for conciliation so that in all the matters efforts of conciliation may be made together. In view of the statement made by learned advocate for the Respondent we take this letter dated 14.03.2011 on the record of this case and treat it as part of the records. Since the matter is to be sent for conciliation, the order dated 25.04.2003 passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 4947 of 2003 requires to be quashed and set aside.

4.

Mr. Vyas has pointed out that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition as the earlier writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 467 of 1994 challenging the order of termination of service/removal was dismissed as withdrawn. In our opinion since the matter is being sent for reconciliation, the withdrawal of the earlier writ petition or the present order which deserves to be set aside shall not come in the way of the Appellant.

5.

We accordingly set aside the impugned judgement dated 25.04.2003 passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 4947 of 2003 and allow the present appeal to that extent. We further direct the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Adipur (Kutch) to examine the case of the Appellant and take up his matter also for conciliation. It shall be open to the both the sides to raise all the contentions before the authority concerned.