K.M. Thaker, J.

1. Heard Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner Company and Mr. Gadhia, learned advocate for present respondent i.e. original claimant.

2. In present petition, petitioner Company has challenged award dated 02.08.2006 passed by learned Labour Court at Ahmedabad in Reference No. 825 of 1995, whereby the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad directed the petitioner Company to reinstate claimant on his original post with continuity of service and 25% backwages.

3. After hearing the parties, the Court passed below quoted order on 19.03.2007:

"Heard the learned advocate.

Rule. Notice as to interim relief returnable on 18th June, 2007. Pending this petition, there shall be ad interim stay in terms of paragraph 6 [B]."

4. Subsequently the Court passed below quoted order dated 03.07.2007:

"Heard learned Advocate Mr. Joshi for Mr. D.R. Dave for the petitioner. Rule has been issued by this court by order dated 19.3.2007. While issuing rule, this court has granted ad. Interim relief in terms of para 6(B of the petition and has issued notice as to interim relief which has been served on the respondent. However, inspite of service of notice issued by this court, respondent has not appeared before this court either in person or through any advocate.

Therefore, ad. Interim relief granted by this court on 19th March, 2007 is confirmed till the matter is finally decided by this court and also subject to the compliance of section 17B of the ID Act, 1947."

5. From the above quoted order, it comes out that the Court stayed the implementation and operation of the award on the condition that the employer shall comply with Section 17B of the ID Act, 1947.

6. This Court is informed that subsequently there was some modification in the order with regard to interim relief inasmuch as during the pendency of the petition, the Company, instead of paying wages under Section 17B of the Act, opted to reinstate the claimant, without prejudice to the contention in the petition and without prejudice to the objection against the impugned award. Subsequently, below quoted order came to be passed on 17.03.2008 in Civil Application No. 1657 of 2008:

"1. Heard learned advocate Mr. K.V. Gadhia on behalf of applicant, learned advocate Mr. D.R. Dave appearing for opponent.

2. After filling this application, the opponent has reinstated applicant in service. Therefore, prayer made in this application to grant benefit u/s. 17B, at this stage does not arise.

3. Accordingly, present Civil application is disposed of."

7. It is in light of the above mentioned facts the petitioner's challenge against the award has to be considered.

8. So far as the factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record that the petitioner company dismissed present respondent from service pursuant to domestic inquiry, which was conducted with reference to certain serious misconduct allegedly committed by the present respondent.

8.1 Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 22.12.1994 whereby the Company terminated, the claimant raised industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to Labour Court at Ahmedabad. The dispute was registered as Reference No. 825/95.

8.2 In his statement of claim, the claimant alleged and claimed that he was working as Accountant with the Company and that he drew salary of Rs. 1755/- and that without any fault on his part, the Company served show cause notice dated 01.10.1994 and placed him under suspension.

8.3 He also alleged that subsequently the Company issued charge sheet dated 08.10.1994 and conducted so called domestic inquiry against him and that the allegations against him were not proved. The Company dismissed him from service vide order dated 22.11.1994. The claimant alleged that the inquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice and his service was terminated arbitrarily and without any justification. With such allegation, the claimant demanded that he should be reinstated in service with all benefits.

8.4 The Compan