LPA/1689/2005 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1689 of 2005 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10117 of 2000 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 ? ========================================================= GHANSHYAMBHAI G. GOHIL - Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR RJ OZA for Appellant(s) : 1, MS VS PATHAK ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER Date : 23/01/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT) LPA/1689/2005 2/4 JUDGMENT This Appeal preferred by the workman under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 18th July, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in above Special Civil Application No. 10117 of 2000 in so far as the award for backwages made by the Labour Court has been set aside. It appears that the appellant – workman was employed as a labourer by the respondent – Curator, Barton Museum, Bhavnagar. His service came to be discontinued on 1st October, 1994. Feeling aggrieved, the workman raised industrial dispute, which came to be referred to the Labour Court, Bhavnagar and registered as Reference (LCB) No.198 of 1995. According to the appellant, he had worked for around 340 days in 12 calender months preceeding his discharge from service. Nevertheless, he was not given notice of retrenchment or notice pay or retrenchment compensation. The discontinuance of the workman from service was thus in contravention of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The aforesaid claim was supported by the workman by LPA/1689/2005 3/4 JUDGMENT his own evidence. It appears that before the Labour Court, the respondent did not contest the reference. The Labour Court by its judgment and award dated 2nd December, 1998 decided the reference in favour of the workman. The Labour Court directed the respondent to reinstate the workman in service with consequential benefits of continuity in service and full backwages. It, further, appears that the respondent filed Miscellaneous Civil Application No.61 of 1999 before the Labour Court under Rule 26A of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules for recall of the award which came to be rejected on 21st March, 2000. Since then, the respondent challenged the award made by the Labour Court in above writ petition. By impugned order, the writ petition is allowed to the extent the award for backwages has been set aside. Therefore, the present Appeal. Mr. Oza has appeared for the workman. He has submitted that this was not a case where the workman was discharged or removed from service by way of punishment. The workman did depose before the Labour Court that since his discharge from service by the LPA/1689/2005 4/4 JUDGMENT respondent, he had remained unemployed. The Labour Court had, therefore, rightly awarded backwages. The learned Single Judge has erred in invoking the principle of No Work No Pay and in setting aside the award for backwages. We are unable to agree with Mr. Oza. The learned Single Judge has recorded finding that the Labour Court had not given cogent reasons for awarding backwages. The learned Single Judge has also invoked the principle of No Work No Pay. We do agree with the learned Single Judge. No interference is warranted. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. (Ms.R.M.Doshit, J.) (K.M.Thaker, J.) kdc