- (1.)This Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been filed by the Appellant challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.6.2004 passed in Special Civil Application No. 2276 of 2004 by which the Award of the Labour Court dated 30.6.2003 passed in Reference (LCK) No. 228 of 1988 has been affirmed. The Labour Court has directed to reinstate the Respondent workman on his original post with 50% back wages.
(2.)Brief facts of the case are that the Respondent was appointed as a temporary Helper in the year 1970 in Gujarat Electricity Board, Kadi. He was regularly appointed on 10.2.1972. According to the Appellant, in the past, various notices had been issued to the Respondent for unauthorised absence from duty. Since the Respondent was absent from duty unauthorisedly, therefore, his services came to be terminated by order dated 4.7.1987 by the Appellant exercising powers under Regulation 113 of the Board, as inspite of notices served on the Respondent, he did not join his duty.
In para-3 of the memo of Appeal, it has been stated that the Respondent was continuously absent from 28.1.1987 to 4.7.1987. A notice was issued to the Appellant on 5.2.1987 informing him that he was absent from duty without leave from headquarters and he was called to give his explanation. Another notice was sent to him on 10.4.1987. It was informed by this notice that by merely writing a post card and seeking permission of leave, was not sufficient as the Respondent remained absent and he did not produce any medical certificate nor he reported for duty. The explanation of Respondent was called and he was directed to be present on duty. Another notice was issued on 6.6.1987 informing the Respondent that his continuous absence from duty means that he is not interested in continuing with service. He was given last warning and called upon to remain present on duty. Since the Respondent, inspite of last notice did not join his duty, therefore, he was terminated from service by order dated 4.7.1987.

(3.)The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the Appellant on the ground that the controversy involved in the writ petition was covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court in Gujarat Electricity Board v. Girishbhai Valjibhai Chudgar decided on 2.7.2003 in LPA No. 652 of 2002 and this fact was conceded by the learned Counsel for the Appellant appearing for the Board before the writ Court, that the facts of the case before the Division Bench and in the instant case were similar, therefore, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the Appellant. In Appeal, Gujarat Electricity Board has engage another Counsel on its panel who had filed this Appeal.