Point of Law: Once the learned Single Judge having seen the records and come to the conclusion that the industry was not functioning after January, 1995, there is no justification in entering a different finding without any further material before the Division Bench. The appellate bench ought to have noticed that the statement of MW-3 is itself part of the evidence before the Labour Court. Be that as it may, in an intra-court appeal, on a finding of fact, unless the appellate Bench reaches a conclusion that the finding of the Single Bench is perverse, it shall not disturb the same. Merely because another view or a better view is possible, there should be no interference with or disturbance of the order passed by the Single Judge, unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on relief.

ORDER :

NIRZAR S. DESAI, J.

1. By way of this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant herein (original respondent authority) has challenged the oral order dated 22.10.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby while allowing the petition being Special Civil Application No.14162 of 2019 preferred by the respondent herein (original petitioner – delinquent) , the learned Single Judge quashed and set aside the order of termination dated 19.07.2019 and directed the present appellant (original respondent) to reinstate the respondent herein (original petitioner) on his original post with continuity of service and salary / wages for the interregnum period, as well as the consequential benefits, as if the order of termination was never passed and with a further direction to pay the original petitioner the resultant consequential benefits within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this Court. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid order dated 22.10.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. Names of the parties are mentioned as per their stated in the petition.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are stated as under :

2.1 The original petitioner of writ petition being Special Civil Application No.14162 of 2019 (respondent no.1 herein) came to be appointed as Talati-cum-Mantri vide order dated 05.09.2015 after regular process of recruitment undertaken by ‘GPSC’ against the sanctioned post. The petitioner’s appointment was as per the policy of the Government that initially the appointment would be for a period of five years on a fixed salary basis and the same would be of contractual nature on fixed salary. On completion of five years, all such incumbent would be given regular salary and would be conferred status of ‘regular employee’. Within a period of five years from the date of his appointment, the petitioner (respondent no.1 herein), after his appointment as Talati-cum-Mantri on 12.09.2015, but before the petitioner could complete tenure of five years, FIR came to be lodged against him on 11.12.2018 before Jamnagar ACB Police Station being I-C.R.No.7 of 2018 under the Prevention of Corruption Act on the basis of allegations levelled in the FIR in respect of illegal gratification of an amount of Rs.20,000/-. Pursuant to the aforesaid FIR, the petitioner was arrested and subsequently was enlarged on bail vide order dated 15.12.2018 by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Jamangar in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.2046 of 2018. It was the case of the original petitioner that trap was not successful and nothing was recovered from the petitioner and he was arraigned falsely in the aforesaid FIR.

2.2 Thereafter the present appellant (original respondent no.3) issued Notice dated 09.04.2019 and asked the petitioner to show cause as to why his contractual appointment should not be terminated in view of the alleged misconduct stated in the Notice dated 09.04.2019 referring to the FIR registered against the petitioner. On the basis of the aforesaid reference, it was stated in the Show Cause Notice that the petitioner has exhibited dereliction in the duty and committed breach of termination of appointment and hence his services are liable to be terminated.

2.3 The petitioner replied to the aforesaid Show Cause Notice and requested to grant him to cross-examine the witnesses while reiterating that he has not committed any breach of prevailing rules. According to the petitioner except the false FIR there is no material against the petitioner. Ultimately the authority i.e. Deputy District Development Officer (Revenue), Jamnagar District Panchayat passed an order dated 19.07.2019 terminating the services of the petitioner without holding the full- fledged inquiry, after taking into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner but observing that the representation made by the petitioner in respect of granting permi