GUJARAT MAZDOOR PANCHAYAT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the order impugned in this Special Civil Application there is a decline to refer the dispute raised by the petitioner. The order impugned is dated 27-9-1991. There are four demands raised by the petitioner against the 2nd respondent. We need not dwell on the nature of the demands because the grievance expressed by the petitioner is with reference to the propriety of the reasons expressed for the decline to make the reference. The reasons expressed in the impugned order which is in Gujarati run as follows:

(2.) Coming to the first factor no clarity is there as to what were the demands that were the subject-matter of the earlier proceedings and as to whether the same workmen who have raised the present demands were the workmen who raised the earlier demands. That is why the complaint is made that a bald assertion as set out in the impugned order only exposes the non-application of mind. We do not want to express any view on this question. It is for the 1st respondent to find out by referring to the requisite materials as to whether the present demands are only the same demands raised by the very same set of workmen. The 1st respondent must also go into the question even if it comes to the conclusion that the same workmen raised the same demands earlier and they were negatived to find out whether there could be a reconsideration of the issue on relevant consideration in this behalf. We are obliged to take note of the lack of approach on the part of the 1st respondent to the question in the manner delineated above and the feature also obliges us to frown upon the impugned order. There is a need on the part of the 1st respondent to consider the question afresh in the light of what we have observed as above and we are sure that the 1st respondent will avoid the infirmities which we have noted above and which alone constrained us to interfere in writ powers. There is a request put forth by both the sides that while the 1st respondent does this re-exercise on the question the parties may be permitted to place additional materials from their respective point of view. There is also a request by Mr. N. R. Shahani learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that a time limit may be fixed for the 1st respondent to consider the question afresh and decide over it and until that is done the status quo prevailing as on date may be maintained. The learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that from September 1989 this Court has shown the indulgence of granting interim relief. Mr. Buch representing Mr. K. S. Nanavati learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent states that the status quo as on date with reference to the individuals who raised the demands and whose cause the petitioner represents shall be maintained by his client for a period of six weeks. Accordingly we allow this Special Civil Application; set aside the order impugned in the Special Civil Application and give the following directions :