( 1 ) HEARD learned advocate ms. S. K. Mandavia, appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned advocate mr. P. H. Pathak for respondent.

( 2 ) IN the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the award passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Industrial dispute No. 38 of 2004 dated 22. 9. 2004. The central Government Industrial Tribunal cum labour Court, Ahmedabad has set aside the termination order with a direction to petitioner to reinstate the respondent workman to his original post with continuity of service and to pay 30% back wages to the workman from the date of termination till the date of order of reference - 9. 6. 1995. The central Government Industrial Tribunal cum labour Court, Ahmedabad further directed that if the workman is not reinstated within a period of 30 days of the publication of award, the petitioner shall pay full back wages prevailing at the time of award to the workman. A cost of Rs. 1000 has also been award in favour of workman by the Tribunal cum Labour Court.

( 3 ) THE petitioner has placed on record the statement of claim filed by workman at Annexure-B and written statement filed by petitioner at Annexure-C along with statement of working of the respondent workman between 1. 1. 1985 to 31. 12. 1991 as per pay bills of Anand Post office and Dakor Head Office at Annexure-D. By Annexure-E, service rules from Swami for the ED Staff has been placed on record. Except that, no other annexures are attached to the petition.

( 4 ) INITIALLY, this matter has been placed before the Hon ble Division Bench of this Court (Coram : G. S. Singhvi and Anand S. Dave, JJ. ). The Division Bench has passed following order on 21. 4. 2005 :

"heard Smt. K. Mandavia for the petitioner and perused the record. We are prima facie of the view that the finding recorded by the learned presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad that the respondent workman had worked for 240 days in 12 months preceding the termination of his service is a finding of fact, which is based on correct appreciation of evidence and does not call for interference under article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, we feel that the issue of back wages would require consideration by the court. Admit. The petitioner s prayer for staying the impugned award is rejected insofar as it relates to reinstatement of the respondent workman. However, in the peculiar facts of the case, we deem it proper to stay the award of back wages to the extent of 50%. This would necessarily mean that the petitioner shall have to take the workman back in service in accordance with the direction given in the impugned award and pay 50% of the awarded back wages. If the petitioner fails to reinstate the workman within next 15 days and pay the amount of 50% awarded back wages, then the partial interim order passed today shall stand vacated automatically and the workman shall then be entitled to avail the appropriate remedies including the one by filing an application under Section 29 of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for prosecution of the officer concerned. A copy of this order be served upon the workman along with notice of the writ application. "

( 5 ) THE aforesaid order of the Hon ble division Bench was challenged by the petitioner before the Hon ble Apex Court being Civil Appeal No. 1261 of 2007 where the Hon ble Apex Court has passed following order on 9. 3. 2007 :

"the appeal above-mentioned being called on for hearing before this Court on the 9th day of March,2007, UPON perusing the record and hearing counsel for the parties herein, THIS COURT DOTH PASS the following ORDER : having regard to the fact that the question as to whether the Department of post Office is an Industry, is pending consideration before the High Court Gujarat, we are of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly and the matter is remitted to the high Court for consideration