LPA/860/2006 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 860 of 2006 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6984 of 2006 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7995 of 2001 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= JADAVBHAI KARAMSHINBHAI AGED ADULT, HINDU BY RELIGION - Appellant(s) Versus GUJARAT WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR DHIRAJ M PATEL for Appellant(s) : 1, MR HS MUNSHAW for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER Date : 29/01/2008 LPA/860/2006 2/5 JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT) Heard the learned advocates. This Appeal, preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, arises from the judgment and order dated 17th November, 2005, passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.7995 of 2001. The appellant workman was engaged by the respondent – Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) as pump operator on daily wages. After service for some three years as such, in the year 1987 the workman took leave of absence for certain weeks. On expiry of the period of leave he did not report for duty. Three years thereafter, in the year 1990 the workman raised industrial dispute which came to be referred to the Labour Court, Amreli and registered as Reference Case No.465 of 1990. After a round of litigation before this Court, the reference was remanded for decision afresh and was renumbered as Reference No.39 of 1999. LPA/860/2006 3/5 JUDGMENT The Labour Court, by its judgment and award dated 26th May, 2000, held that the termination of service of the workman was in contravention of Sections 25(F), 25(G) and 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court directed the Board to reinstate the workman in service with benefit of continuity in service and the backwages. Feeling aggrieved, the Board preferred Special Civil Application No.7995 of 2001 before this Court. By impugned order, the said petition has been partly allowed. The order for reinstatement in service has been confirmed, however, award for backwages has been set aside. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the Labour Court had not given cogent reasons for award of the backwages. Feeling aggrieved, the workman has preferred the present Appeal. Mr. Patel has assailed the judgment of the learned Single Judge. He has submitted that the Labour Court did record reasons for awarding backwages i.e. the Board had failed to prove that the workman was gainfully employed since the termination of his service. Mr. Patel has submitted that the LPA/860/2006 4/5 JUDGMENT learned Judge has erred in setting aside the award for the backwages. Mr. Munshaw has appeared for the Board. He has contested the Appeal. He has submitted that the learned Single Judge has recorded that though the workman was engaged on daily wages, he was allowed to remain absent for few days. After expiry of the said period he did not report for duty nor did he raise industrial dispute for some three years. The learned Single Judge has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to invoke the principle of No Work No Pay to set aside the award for backwages. The award for backwages was the matter of discretion of the Court concerned. Besides the workman was employed on daily wages, he on his own did not report for duty for some period. In the circumstances, if the learned Single Judge has invoked the principle of No Work No Pay to set aside the award for backwages, we do not propose to interfere with the same. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. Civil Application stands disposed of. LPA/860/2006 5/5 JUDGMENT (Ms. R.M.Doshit, J.) (K.M.Thaker, J.) kdc