1997 Supreme(Guj) 337

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :C.K.THAKKER, S.D.Pandit
JAMNAGAR-RAJKOT GRAMIN BANK OFFICERS ASSOCIATION - Appellant
Versus
JAMNAGAR-RAJKOT GRAMIN BANK - Respondent
L.P.A. 1335 of 1996
Decided On : 07/16/1997

Headnote:(a) Letters Patent Appeal — Order regarding ad interim relief — Two contradictory orders in different appeals while in one making ad interim relief absolute and in other vacating the ad interim relief — Interim relief is in the nature of mandatory relief of directing petitioners employers bank to continue to contribute 10% of the pay towards P.F. account of their officer & employee drawing pay of Rs. 5000 or mere — Court considering the facts found that ad interim relief sought by petitioners is such that the giving of the same will result into the finally deciding the controversy between the parties — Besides it is not that non-granting of relief will result in irreperable injury to petitioners which could not be compensated adequately by payment of money — Amount once paid by bank is also not likely to be adjusted against future contribution liability of bank — In the circumstances court vacated both the orders one granting & other vacating the interim relief replaced the same with suitable orders.

       Court is aware that it is hearing these Letters Patent Appeal against the interim relief sought by the original petitioners. If we happened to give our decision, even prima facie on any of the contentions raised by the parties then the same is likely to result into causing prejudice to the party against whom we happened to express our view. The interim relief which the petitioners have sought is such that the giving of the same will result into the finally deciding the controversy between the parties. From the averments made in the petition it is not possible to hold that by non granting of the interim relief the petitioner will suffer irreparable injury that could not be compensated adequately by payment of money. From the letter of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner the amount once paid by the Bank could not be also refunded to them and the bank could not be allowed to adjust the same towards their liability in respect of future contribution or towards contribution payable in other accounts. Therefore, in view of all the above circumstances we are of the opinion that it would not be proper and just to pass an order of interim relief as sought by the original petitioners.

       [Para 8]

       In view of the above facts and the controversy between the parties and the nature of interim relief sought which is in the nature of final relief, we are of the view that taking into consideration the balance of convenience and the interest of both the parties the order of interim relief granted in Special Civil Application No. 3707/1995 and the order of refusing to grant interim relief in Special Civil Application No. 3195/95 are to be set aside and to be substituted.

       [Para 9]

       (b) Practice & Procedure — Judicial discipline — Requirement was that if in earlier proceeding a particular view is taken by Court in the similar facts it is not proper for another Single Judge to take different view unless earlier order is incuriam — In case succeeding Judge differ on facts or in law, matter should be referred to Division Bench — However in such circumstances copy of order of the earlier decision must be filed before later Court — Same having not been done in the case contention has no force.

       Judicial comity requires that if in the earlier proceedings a particular view is taken by the court, in the similar facts it is not proper for another Single Judge to take a different view unless it is found that the earlier order is incuriam. Judicial discipline requires that if the succeeding Judge is of a different view and wants to interpret the facts and the position of law in a different way, then to refer the matter to a Division Bench by expressing his view and to decide which of the two views is correct. Such a procedure is necessary to be adopted by the court in order to maintain Judicial discipline and to create confidence in the judicial system. In the instant case we are unable to hold that the earlier order passed in SCA No. 3707/96 as well as the copy of the writ petition No. 3707/96 was produced before the learned Single Judge and it was urged before the learned single Judge that in view of the same the court cannot take a different view.

       [Para 10]