(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA) The appellants have sought to challenge order dated 24.4.2012 of learned Single Judge whereby their petition challenging award of the labour Court has been partly allowed so as to sustain the order of reinstatement and modify the award of 65% back wages. Although the petition was styled as one under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the jurisdiction invoked and exercised in the impugned decision is apparently and exclusively under Article 227 of the Constitution. Therefore, prima facie, the appeal is not maintainable. However, in view of the fact that Article 226 was invoked in the original petition, learned counsel, Mr.Munshaw, vehemently argued that even after completely denying back wages to the respondent, the order for his reinstatement in service was not required to be sustained in view of lapse of very long period between the date of termination of service of the employee and the date of award of the labour Court. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case wherein all the similarly situated employees of the appellant were absorbed and deployed by the appellant, there was no reason to deny the relief of reinstatement to the workman. Learned Single Judge having duly considered that aspect of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order even on merits or any other ground. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed in limine along with Civil Application.
(D.H.Waghela, J.) (G.B.Shah, J.) *malek Top