Being of this view, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.
7469 of 1997 whereunder he has companycurred with the award passed by the Labour Court which had, on the strength of a companypromise entered into by the Sarpanch of Nava Naroda Gram Panchayat, the 2nd respondent with the workman and on that basis had directed his reinstatement in service on the post of a clerk with full back wages.
The learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 30.7.1998 companysidering the submission opined that there was numbermention in the writ petition that the said companypromise was entered into by the village Sarpanch on account of any fraud or misrepresentation or undue influence that when the Gram Panchayat was made a party and the Sarpanch was representing the said Panchayat, the Sarpanch was entitled under Section 55 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 for brevity, the Act , to sign the companypromise that the Sarpanch being the Chief Officer is the employer of the workman as per sub clause 2 to Section 2 g of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and hence, the companypromise executed between him and the workman was valid and legally enforceable that while interpreting the award on the strength of companypromise, it was open to the Panchayat to reinstate him on the post of Mukadam, the post which he was holding at the time of his retrenchment and that when there was admission in respect of the companypromise before the Labour Court, there was numberillegality in the award passed by the Labour Court.
vs. Vinubhai Purshottambhai Patel and others1, ruled that the appeal was number maintainable.
The Gram Panchayat and the Corporation preferred the intra court appeal and as has been stated hereinbefore, the Division Bench relying on a Full Bench decision of the High Court in Revaben wd o Ambalal Motibhai and Ors.
1070/1998 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court has opined that against the order of the learned Single Judge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, an intra court appeal is number maintainable, and also question the defensibility of judgment and order dated 30.7.1998 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.
As has been clarified earlier, we are number delving into the issue whether the intra court appeal was maintainable or number.
Dipak Misra, J. The present appeals, by special leave, assail the judgment and order dated 17.7.2013 in LPA No.
Hence, an appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the Division Bench and another appeal questioning the justifiability of the order passed by the Labour Court that has been affirmed by the learned Single Judge.
