(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI) The present Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the judgement and order dated 26th December 2011 in Special Civil Applications No.12331 of 2000 and 3798 of 2000. The judgement and order is challenged by way of this Letters Patent Appeal to the extent the party is aggrieved by the judgement and order passed in Special Civil Application No.3798 of 2000. The operative part of the judgement and order under challenge in the Letters Patent Appeal reads as under:
"As seen earlier, in the facts of this case, the employer has sought interference by this Court in the matter of the factual findings arrived at by the Tribunal where the scope of judicial review is clearly restricted and the findings of the Tribunal are found not to be perverse. On the other hand, the employee has, in his petition, sought substitution of the impugned order insofar as full back wages are denied. The Tribunal has, on the latter aspect, taken note of the contention that the workman had not produced any evidence about his attempt to get any employment and not believing the say of the workman that he remained unemployed while surviving on the support of his brother-in-law throughout the period of about eight years, awarded 50% of the back wages. No reason was made out on behalf of the workman to interfere with that part of the order and, in fact, his petition was not seriously pressed."
In the result, the learned Judge was pleased to reject both the petitions and discharge notice and rule as the case may be with no order as to cost.
2. It is trite law that a petition against the judgement and order of the learned Single Judge, which is passed in a petition wherein the judgement and award dated 13th July 2000 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara in Reference No.I.T. (Central) 4 of 1992 was under challenge, a Letters Patent Appeal could not have been entertained at all.
3. The learned advocate for the appellant did invite our attention to a decision of this Court in the matter of (The) Bhagyodaya Cooperative Bank Limited Vs. Natvarlal K. Patel and another, reported in 2011 (3) GLH (Full Bench) 89; and another decision in the matter of Vijay Hathising Shah and another Vs. Gitaben Parshottamdas Mukhi, L.R. of Chanchalben P. Mukhi & others, reported in 2011 (3) GLH 449. In view of the aforesaid trite legal position this Court is of the opinion that the present LPA is not maintainable and cannot be entertained by this Court. Hence the same is dismissed.
The learned advocate for the appellant requested to clarify that the Court has not examined the matter on merits. Order accordingly.
The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that stay against implementation and execution of the award of the Industrial Tribunal, which is operating till date be continued on the condition that the appellant shall continue to pay benefits flowing from section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to the employee. The same be continued at least for a period of eights weeks to enable the appellant to take recourse, a remedy available to them to approach the Hon'ble the Apex Court.
4. The request is found reasonable. The same is granted. Stay operating as on date is ordered to continue upto 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
(RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J.) (G.B.
SHAH, J.) karim Top