Gujarat High Court
SCA/7264/1996 of STATE OF GUJARAT Vs SAIYED VIRASAT MOHMED YASINMIYA on 12 December 1996
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 7264 of 1996 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE J.N.BHATT ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 7264 of 1996
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE J.N.BHATT
============================================================
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?
-------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SAIYED VIRASAT MOHMED YASINMIYA
-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:
MR B.A.BAMBHNIA, ADDL.GOVT.PLEADER for Petitioners MR NITIN N PANDYA for Respondent No. 1 Respondent No. 2 SERVED.
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE J.N.BHATT
Date of decision: 12/12/96
ORAL JUDGEMENT
Rule. Service of Rule is waived by learned Advocate Mr.
Sahani for Nitin N.Pandya,learned advocate for respondent-workman. The petitioner State has deleted respondent No.2.
It is an admitted fact that the disputed question before the Labour court is required to be decided. It is really very surprising that the Labour court,Ahmedabad has not examined and adjudicated the disputed question which is clearly manifested from a plain perusal of the impugned award and there is no dispute about this aspect. It cannot be denied that the said disputed question ought to have been decided.In that view of the matter,it would be just and reasonable to remand the matter to the Labour court with a direction to dispose of the matter after hearing the parties and examining and determining all disputed questions as early as possible especially in very surprising that the Labour court,Ahmedabad has not examined and adjudicated the disputed question which is clearly manifested from a plain perusal of the impugned award and there is no dispute about this aspect. It cannot be denied that the said disputed question ought to have been decided.In that view of the matter,it would be just and reasonable to remand the matter to the Labour court with a direction to dispose of the matter after hearing the parties and examining and determining all disputed questions as early as possible especially in connection with the provisions of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 .
In the result, the petition is allowed to this extent and the matter is remanded to the Labour court, Ahmedabad for decision in accorance with law after hearing the parties, as expeditiously as possible. Rule is made absolute to this extent with no order as to costs.
-----