1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Ashish H. Shah for petitioner workman and learned Advocate Mr. KD Gandhi for Nanavati Associates for respondent Company.

2. In this petition, petitioner has challenged award passed by Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA)No. 171 of 1994 dated 4th January, 2002wherein labour court Ahmedabad has granted an amount of Rs.85000.00 being lumsum amount against claim of back wages and other service benefits while setting aside order of termination. Labour Court has considered one fact that on 5th December, 1998, petitioner employee had reached age of superannuation and his service was terminated on 12th June, 1993.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. AH Shah appearing for petitioner has raised contention that petitioner was appointed as Mechanical Draftsman on probation for a period of six months on monthly pay of Rs.740.00 in respondent Company with effect from 11th March, 1977 and thereafter, petitioner was made permanent by respondent Co. as Mechanical Draftsman in scale of Rs.500-1020 with effect from 5th November, 1977. During period from 1977 to 1993, petitioner had worked in respondent Company as Draftsman and later on as Planning Assistant in Drawing and Designing Section of respondent Company. He submitted that service of petitioner was terminated by respondent Company without holding departmental inquiry, on 12.6.1993 on ground that respondent company has lost confidence in him. He submitted that thereafter, in 1994, petitioner raised an industrial dispute challenging order of termination which was referred for adjudication on 11th January, 1994 being registered as Reference No. 171 of 1994.

4. Learned Advocate Mr. Shah for petitioner also raised contention before this Court that though service was terminated on the ground of loss of confidence, which is considered to be stigma, however, no departmental inquiry was initiated against petitioner and, therefore, order of termination itself is violative of basic principles of natural justice and, therefore, back wages for interim period ought to have been awarded by labour court. He submitted that before labour court, gainful employment of petitioner has not been proved by management and though there was specific evidence led by petitioner before labour court that he has remained totally unemployed during interim period from date of termination till date of his reaching age of superannuation, labour court has not granted any back wages for interim period. He also submitted that lumsum amount which has been awarded by labour court which includes retirement benefits and if it is to be considered, then, petitioner is entitled for more amount which comes to approximately Rs.5,00,000.00 which has not been granted by labour court and small or meager amount has been awarded by labour court being lumsum compensation for which labour court has not exercised discretionary powers properly and labour court has ignored total interim period of more than five years during which petitioner had remained unemployed and thus, sufficient care and relevant factors have not been taken into account by labour court while awarding lumsum amount in favour of petitioner and, therefore, interference of this court is necessary while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

5. Learned Advocate Mr. Shah has referred to page 11, order of termination dated 12th June, 1993 where it is mentioned that petitioner has indulged in activities which are against interest of company, therefore, management has lost confidence in him and, therefore, petitioner is here by discharged by paying him one month's wages in lieu of notice and also advised petitioner to collect his legal dues from Accounts Department.

6. Learned Advocate Mr. KD Gandhi appearing for respondent company has submitted that labour court has rightly exercised discretionary powers since workman has reached age of superannuation in the year 1998 and sufficient and reasonable care has been taken an