K.M. Thaker, J.

1. This petition is pending since 2007. Today, when the petition is called out and taken up for hearing, learned advocate for the petitioner is not present. Ms. Nidhi Trivedi, learned advocate for Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the respondent company is present. Having regard to the fact that the petition is pending since more than 10 years, this Court deems it proper to decide the petition on merits, though learned advocate for the petitioner is not present to conduct the petition on merits. For this purpose, this Court has taken into account the facts stated and contentions raised in the petition, the discussion by the learned Labour Court and the material available on record.

2. So far as the factual background is concerned, the petitioner has stated, inter alia, that:-

"3.1 That, the present petitioner was working as a Head Mistry cum Supervisor since 01.09.1982. The present petitioner was also working overtime in opponent company. Beginning of this job the present petitioner was getting salary of Rs. 1500/- per month and Rs. 1000/- commission on preparation and selling of one machine by the petitioner. After some months the opponent company had given fix salary of Rs. 3500/- p.m. and another benefits regarding the Labour Laws and rules of overtime.

3.2 It is respectfully submitted that the respondent company without following any procedure whatsoever under the Industrial Disputes Act and without any justifiable reason, terminated the services of the present petitioner workman in the year 1990. Therefore, the present petitioner approached the Labour Commissioner vide complaint dated 10.03.1997. That, the respondent company did not appear before the Labour Commissioner for their defence and therefore, by order dated 10.10.1997 above complaint referred to the learned Labour Court as a reference to decide "whether the workman is entitled for reinstatement on his post with full back wages or not?

3.3 The petitioner respectfully submits that in this reference before the learned Labour Court, the present petitioner-workman submitted their statement of claim vide Exh. 7 and stated facts of the case regarding the appointment, salary and termination of the workman.

3.4 It is respectfully submitted that after service of the notice to the respondent company they appeared and filed their reply dated 21.11.2002 vide Exh. 10 and denied all the averments made in the statement of claim and stated that date of the termination in the complaint dated 10.03.1997 before Labour Commissioner and statement of claim in Reference (LCA) No. 1297/1997 are different and therefore, workman is not entitled for reinstatement with full back wages. They also stated in their reply that the reasons are also different and therefore workman is not entitled for reinstatement."

2.1 It has emerged that the petitioner herein raised industrial dispute with the allegation that the opponent company illegally terminated his service and therefore, the company should reinstate him with all benefits. Appropriate Government referred the dispute for adjudication to learned Labour Court at Ahmedabad. The dispute came to be registered as Reference (LCA) No. 1297 of 1997.

2.2 In the statement of claim, the claimant alleged that he was working with the opponent company since 8 years as Head Mistry-cum-Supervisor and that his past service record was clean and blotless and he had worked diligently and regularly. He also alleged that his salary was Rs. 1,500/- per month, however, it was agreed that on production and sale of one unit/machine, he will be paid Rs. 1,000/- towards commission. He also alleged that the opponent company illegally terminated his service on 27.7.1990 by oral order. The claimant further alleged that his service was terminated without following procedure prescribed by law and in breach of principles of natural justice. With such allegations, the claimant demanded that he should be reinstated in service with full backwages and other benefit