STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. ANIRUDDHSINH S JADEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present is an appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent at the instance of the State of Gujarat against the decision dated 06.03.2002 rendered in Special Civil Application No.5547 of 1996 and Special Civil Application No.2460 of 1998.

(2.) The facts in nutshell are that the respondent workman after he was removed from services made a reference to the Labour Court and submitted before the said Court that contrary to the provisions contained in section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ¢ ¬ ½), he was removed from the services, therefore, he was entitled to be reinstated. It was submitted that the workman was not removed from the services but he abandoned the services. The parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions. The workman submitted on oath the he worked for 240 days, but did not lead any further evidence nor produced any documentary evidence in support of the said contention. The Government, through its witnesses did not say that the workman had abandoned the services. The learned Labour Court without recording a finding that the workman had worked for 240 days or not, directed reinstatement with 25% back wages. Being aggrieved by the said award both the parties filed the above referred Special Civil applications. It appears that during pendency of the said Special Civil applications, a Civil Application was filed before the learned Single Judge for enforcement, implementation and execution of the award made by the learned Labour Court. The learned Single Judge accordingly allowed the application and directed reinstatement of the present appellant.

(3.) Since after execution of the award the respondent workman continued to be in service. When the matter came up for final hearing before the learned Single Judge, after taking note of the reinstatement of the workman the Court observed that it would not be just and fair to interfere in the matter because the workman had already been reinstated. Though the learned Labour Court had not recorded any finding that he had worked 240 days, however, the learned Single Judge directed quashing of payment of 25% of back wages. Being aggrieved by the said decision of the learned Single Judge, the State is before us in these proceedings.