A.P.Thaker,J. - (1.)The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned award dated 12.10.2007 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (L.C.A.) No.544 of 2005, whereby the Labour Court has directed the petitioner - employer to reinstate the respondent - workman with 25% back wages.
(2.)It is contended by the petitioner that the respondent has filed the reference by filing statement of claim and the petitioner has also filed written statement vide Exhibit 7. It is further contended that thereafter the evidence of the workman was recorded and he was cross-examined. It is also contended that the petitioner has filed purshis before the Labour Court on 06.10.2005 vide Exhibit 8 that without right and prejudice if the workman wanted to resume duty, he may do so and in the said purshis the workman's representative put a remarks that he is ready and willing to resume duty. It is contended that in spite of that the workman did not report on duty though he was informed on 13.12.2005 which is at Exhibit 89. It is contended that the muster roll was also produced vide Exhibit 90 wherein the workman was shown as absenting. It is also contended that even in the month of November-December 2005 as well as January-February, April-May and June 2006, the workman did not report on duty. According to the petitioner, though there is sufficient material to show that the workman was not reported on duty, the Labour Court has erroneously granted the reference directing the petitioner to reinstate the workman with 25% back wages.
2.1 According to the petitioner, the finding recorded by the Labour Court is contrary to the evidence on record and the affidavit filed by the petitioner was never controverted and still reinstatement with 25% of back wages has been granted. It is also contended that the services of the workman has never been terminated. It is contended that the workman was able to get better employment and on his own he left the services and he was not interested in the employment. According to the petitioner, all these facts have not been considered by the Labour Court in passing the impugned award which requires to be interfered with by this Court. The petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned award passed by the Labour Court and allow the present petition with costs.

(3.)After issuance of the notice, the respondent was represented by the advocate, but, thereafter, none has appeared on behalf of respondent. The respondent was individually served with the notice, however, he did not appear during the course of the hearing.