Gujarat High Court Weekly Round Up: April 18 To April 24, 2022

NOMINAL INDEX Bhavinkumar Kantilal Gajera vs State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 130 Maheshbhai Govindbhai Patel vs Mother Dairy Fruit And Vegetable Pvt Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 131 Rameshbhai Dhulabhai Katara Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 132 Priteshkumar Bipinbhai Dave vs State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 133 Sardar Patel Seva Trust Versus The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 134 LH Of Late Harijan Shivabhai Bapubhai, Harijan Vinodbhai S/O Late Zaverbhai Shivabhai Harijan Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 135 Dharaben Dhansukhbhai Joshi Versus Gujarat Gaun Seva Pasandgi Mandal Through Secretary 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 136 Judgments/Orders of the week Illegal Mining | Seized Vehicle Must Be Released Without Bank Guarantee If FIR Not Registered Within Time Stipulated Under 2017 Rules: Gujarat HC Case Title: Bhavinkumar Kantilal Gajera vs State Of Gujarat Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 130 The Gujarat High Court has recently explained in the context of the Gujarat Mineral Rules, 2017 that if the complaint is not registered as envisaged under Rule 12(ii) of the Rules of 2017, the competent authority will have to release the seized vehicle without insisting for any bank guarantee. The Bench comprising Justice Vaibhavi Nanavati was hearing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking the quashment of the impugned order which seized the vehicle of the Petitioner. S.17B ID Act | Employer Liable To Pay Wages To Workman During Pendency Of Appeal Against Labour Court's Order Of Reinstatement: Gujarat High Court Case Title: Maheshbhai Govindbhai Patel vs Mother Dairy Fruit And Vegetable Pvt Ltd Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 131 The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that when a Labour Court directs reinstatement of any workman and the employer prefers any proceedings against such award in a High Court, the employer is be liable to pay such workman during the period of pendency of such proceedings in the High Court. Referring to Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Bench comprising Justice RM Chhaya and Justice Hemant Prachchhak observed, "Section 17B of the Act clearly provides that when the Labour Court directs reinstatement of any workman and the employer prefers any proceedings against such award in a High Court, the employer shall be liable to pay such workman "during the period of pendency of such proceedings in the High Court full wages last drawn by him inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule if the workman had not been employed in any establishment during such period." Seized Vehicle Should Be Handled Within 6 Months From Date Of Production Of Vehicle Before Court; Should Not Be Kept In Police Stations For Long: Gujarat HC Case Title: Rameshbhai Dhulabhai Katara Versus State Of Gujarat Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 132 The Gujarat High Court while making note of the Apex Court's decision in SUNDERBHAI AMBALAL DESAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT has affirmed that within a period of six months from the date of production of vehicle before the Court, the seized vehicle should be disposed of appropriately and not be kept at police stations for a long time. Further, if the vehicle is not claimed by the Accused, then the insurance company or third person can auction it under the direction of the Court. The Bench comprising Justice Ilesh J Vora made these observations while hearing a petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Art 226 and the supervisory jurisdiction under Art 227 along with the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 of CrPC for the release of the Muddamal Vehicle. Post Fell Vacant Before Expiry Of Wait List, Applicant Can't Suffer Due To Lapse Of Administration: Gujarat High Court Grants Relief To PWD Candidate Case Title: Priteshkumar Bipinbhai Dave vs State Of Gujarat Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 133 The Gujarat High Court has directed its administrative department to grant appointment to the Petitioner, a physically challenged candidate, who had applied for the post of Peon (Class IV) under the Physically Handicapped category. The Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav considered that two vacancies had arisen before the expiry of the waitlist in which Petitioner's name figured at serial number 67, however, the appointment could not be made since the Recruitment Cell was not informed about the same in due time. Gujarat High Court Restrains Recovery Under Employee's Provident Fund Act Citing Non-Availability Of Industrial Tribunal To Hear Appeals Case Title: Sardar Patel Seva Trust Versus The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 134 The Gujarat High Court has restrained the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner from initiating recovery proceedings against an employer under...

Gujarat High Court Weekly Round Up: April 18 To April 24, 2022

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags