K.M. Thaker, J.

1. In present petition, the petitioner has challenged award dated 4.4.2006 passed by the learned Labour Court at Bhavnagar in Reference (LCB) No. 673 of 1993 whereby the learned Labour Court has directed the petitioner - Gujarat Maritime Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') to reinstate the respondent workman (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent' or 'the claimant) on his original post with continuity of service and 50% backwages. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said direction. Hence present petition.

2. Before proceeding further, it is relevant and necessary to mention at the outset that while the Court considered the petition at admission stage, below quoted order came to be passed on 4.7.2007:

"1. Heard learned advocate Ms. S.K. Mandavia appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned advocate Mr. U.T. Mishra appearing on behalf of respondent on caveat.

2. Issue notice to the respondents returnable on 25th July 2007.

3. Meanwhile, it is directed to the petitioner to reinstate the respondent workman in service on or before 25th July 2007.

4. Direct service is permitted."

3. Subsequently, on 30.8.2007, the Court passed below quoted order:

"1. Heard learned advocate Ms. S.K. Mandavia for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr. T.R. Mishra for respondent.

2. I have considered the submissions made by both the learned advocates. The Labour Court has granted reinstatement with 50% back-wages of interim period.

3. Learned advocate Ms. Mandavia submitted that respondent workman is already reinstated by the petitioner in the post of work-charge clerk in the pay scale of junior clerk of Rs. 3050-4590/-. Therefore, the contention raised by learned advocate Ms. Mandavia requires detailed examination. Hence, Rule.

4. Interim relief in terms of Para.14(B) qua back-wages only.

5. Learned advocate Mr. T.R. Mishra waives the service of rule on behalf of respondent workman."

4. Accordingly, the petition came to be admitted vide order dated 30.8.2007 after recording the statement of learned advocate for the petitioner that the respondent is already reinstated the Court granted interim relief and stayed operation of the award only qua the direction to pay 50% backwages. The order directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent has not been stayed by the Court. Actually, even at the stage of considering the petition for admission, the Court had clarified, vide order dated 4.7.2007, that the concerned workman should be reinstated.

5. It is not in dispute that since 2007, the concerned workman is reinstated and is working with the petitioner.

6. So far as the factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record and submissions by learned advocate for the petitioner and the respondent that the claimant raised an industrial dispute against alleged termination of his service with effect from 26.2.1993. The dispute raised by the claimant came to be referred for adjudication vide order of reference dated 14.10.1993 which came to be registered as Reference (LCB) No. 673 of 1993.

7. In his statement of claim filed before the learned Labour Court, the claimant asserted that he was engaged by the petitioner with effect from June 1991 at salary of Rs. 950/- on work charge basis and that he worked as such continuously from June 1991 to February 1993 when the respondent terminated his service by oral order with effect from 26.2.1993 without any notice or without payment of retrenchment compensation. The claimant alleged that his service came to be terminated without following procedure prescribed by law.

8. The reference was opposed by the petitioner to file written statement at Exh. 8, wherein the petitioner claimed that the claimant was engaged from time to time on 29 days basis', under which different orders engaging the workman for 29 days with one or two days break were issued from time to time during period from June 1991 to February 1993. In the light of the said arrangement under which the claimant was e