JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties.

2. In present petition, petitioner society has challenged award passed by Labour Court, Bharuch in Reference (LCB) No.100 of 2000 dated 13th August, 2010, wherein, Reference made by respondent has partly allowed with a direction to petitioner to reinstate respondent with continuity of service to his original post with 20% back wages of interim period.

3. In this matter, on 22nd December, 2010, this Court has issued 'notice for final disposal' to respondent and made it returnable on 12th January, 2011. The respondent has not filed any affidavit in reply against present petition.

4. Today, learned advocate Mr. B.S. Patel appearing on behalf of petitioner - society has raised contentions before this Court that service of respondent was terminated by society on the ground of loss of confidence and he was working as a Secretary in society and complaint is filed by Bank of Baroda for misappropriation which included account of petitioner society. The respondent workman was arrested when he was working with society on the basis of FIR filed by Bank of Baroda. He also submitted that service of respondent was terminated while passing resolution dated 24th March, 2000 being Resolution No.11/1, Page 65. He also submitted that at the time of terminating service of respondent, one month's notice pay was paid to respondent. He submitted that according to provisions of Section 2(13) of Cooperative Societies Act, post of Secretary is covered by designation as an 'officer', therefore, respondent was not a workman within a meaning of Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'ID Act'). He also submitted that against termination, Regular Civil Suit No.7 of 2000 was filed by respondent before Civil Court, Valia impleading petitioner society as a party as well as other members of Executive Committee. Copy of civil suit is produced on record at page 43 to page 48. He submitted that civil suit has been unconditionally withdrawn by respondent which is at page 48 dated 3rd November, 2003. Because of suit has been unconditionally withdrawn, subsequent proceedings for same relief filed before Labour Court, against which, principles of estopple is applicable against respondent and therefore, reference is barred by principles of estopple. He referred observations made by Labour Court at page 31 in respect of nature of work performed by respondent. He also read over before this Court Item No.Q from Award, page 31 and submitted that in case when service has been terminated by employer on the ground of loss of confidence, then, it cannot consider to be a retrenchment and Section 25F of ID Act has not made applicable. Therefore, compliance of Section 25F by employer does not arise. He also raised contention that issue of loss of confidence has been proved by employer before Labour Court, even though, contrary finding has been given by Labour Court from record.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Patel submitted that according to decision of Apex Court reported in 2005 LLR 417 in case of K.C. Sharma v. Delhi Stock Exchange, wherein, it has been held that in case of loss of confidence, instead of granting relief of reinstatement, compensation is to be worked out and paid to concerned respondent. He submitted that this decision is not considered by Labour Court from record.

6. Learned advocate Mr. Patel relied upon one decision of Apex Court in case of Air India Corporation, Bombay v. Rebellow and Another reported in AIR 1972 SC 1343. He also relied upon another decision of Apex Court in case of Chandu Lal v. Management of M/s. Pan American World Airways Inc. reported in AIR 1985 SC 1128. He further relief upon decision in case of Kamal Kishore Lakshman v. Management of M/s. Pan American World Airways Inc. and Antoher reported in (1987) 1 SCC 146.

7. Learned advocate also relied upon decision in case of West Coast Paper Mills Employees Union, Bombay v. A.B.M. Shaikh and Others reported i