- (1.) This Court has decided the present petition on 20th February, 2002. This Court set aside the award while allowing the petition made by the Labour Court concerned in Reference No.171 of 1996 dated 29th May, 2000. This Court directed the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service with 50% of back wages for the intervening period from the date of termination till the date of actual reinstatement. The respondent was further directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and to pay the back wages to the petitioner for the intervening period at the rate of 50% within 3 months from the date of receipt of the order. Accordingly, the reference was allowed.
(2.) This decision was challenged by the respondent in Letters Patent Appeal No.1067 of 2002. The Division Bench has decided the Letters Patent Appeal on 7th October, 2003. The Division Bench has confirmed the order passed by this Court in respect of granting 50% of back wages for the intervening period. The relevant observations made by the Division Bench while partly allowing the appeal in paragraphs nos.3 and 4 are quoted as under:- "3. However, there is a lot of force in the last submission made by Shri Sood for the appellant that while allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent workman, the learned Single Judge has not considered the submission raised by the appellant-State of Gujarat before him that the project on which the respondent-workman serving had already come to an end and there was no work which can now be offered to the workman. Therefore, he could not have been reinstated in service. Shri Supehia for the respondent workman frankly conceded that the learned Judge has no where considered this submission in his entire judgement while allowing the writ petition. However, Shri Supehia submitted that the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader Shri Dave, who appeared before the learned Single Judge after raising the aforesaid contention did not seriously press that contention into service. Perhaps because of that the learned Single Judge might not have dealt with the same in his order. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the contention was raised before the learned Single Judge. Therefore, it would have been better if the said contention was dealt with and answered by the learned Single Judge in his order. 4. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that only on this limited point this appeal is required to be allowed. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge with a request that the aforesaid contention regarding the project coming to an end during the pendency of the Reference be considered and decided as early as possible, preferably within one month from today. The Letters Patent Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent and main, Special Civil Application is remanded to the learned Single Judge only on this point. No order as to costs." The appellate Court remanded matter back to this Court that the aforesaid contention regarding project coming to an end during the pendency of reference be considered and decided as early as possible.
(3.) Now in light of these facts this Court has to examine the question that during the pendency of Reference the project was closed and in light of that fact whether reinstatement can be granted or not. For this limited purpose, the matter has been remanded back to this Court.;