Point of Law: If the petitioner perceived that any part of the judgment and order passed by the Labour Court and confirmed by this Court is yet not fully implemented, he may resort to any other remedy, that may be available under the Law, but in no case, as discussed hereinabove, he can seek implementation of the award as per his perception, that too, by way of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this petition is rejected summarily.

ORDER :

R.M.CHHAYA, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 16.7.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application no.7231 of 2021 dismissing the said Writ Petition, the appellant - original petitioner has preferred this intra-Court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

2. Following facts emerge from the record of the appeal:-

2.1 That, the appellant came to be appointed in the year 1984 as Peon-cum-Chokidar. It is the case of the appellant that his services came to be terminated in the year 1985. The appellant raised a dispute and the same was referred to the Labour Court and registered as Reference no.1442/1986, which culminated into an award directing the respondents to reinstate the appellant on original post with continuity and backwages and accordingly, the appellant came to be reinstated on 27.2.1992.

2.2 It appears that thereafter, the appellant raised an industrial dispute seeking regularization, which came to be ultimately referred to the Labour Court and came to be registered as Reference (LCD) no.20 of 1995 before the Labour Court at Rajkot. The Labour Court, Rajkot, by an award dated 13.6.2005, was pleased to allow the Reference and directed the respondents to regularize the services of the appellant on completion of 240 days from the date of initial appointment and grant all the benefits of permanency on the post of Peon-cum-Chokidar.

2.3 Record indicates that the said award came to be challenged by the respondent no.2 before this Court by way of filing Special Civil Application no.17413 of 2005, which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment and order dated 17.3.2017. While dismissing the said Writ Petition, the learned Single Judge provided that all the benefits to the appellant be accrued from the date of the impugned award. It was also provided in the judgment that the services of the appellant shall be counted from the date of his appointment. The learned Single Judge also further pleased to observe that the appellant would be given increments from the date of the impugned award and not from the date of his appointment. The learned Single Judge also provided that the period for which the appellant has not served the respondent– Board shall be treated as dies non. The said judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge was challenged by the respondent– Board by way of filing intra-Court appeal being Letters Patent Appeal no.1224 of 2018. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 22.4.2019, disposing of the said Letters Patent Appeal, observed as under:-

“10. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having perused the award of the Labour Court and the judgement of the learned Single Judge, what is apparent is that the respondent workman had been working with the employer Board since the year 1984. Having been terminated in the year 1985, he approached the Labour Court; succeeded therein; got an award of reinstatement which was confirmed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 658 of 1992; was subsequently reinstated after 7 years with continuity of service. Having worked on a sanctioned post without any break, considering the judgements of the Apex Court which have been referred to by the learned Single Judge, we see no reason to interfere with the findings of the Labour Court as confirmed by the learned Single Judge.

11. However, Mr. D.G. Chauhan, learned advocate for the employer Board has fairly stated that pending these appeals the employee workman has retired from service on 29.09.2018 and has been paid Rs.2,22,843/- towards the amount of gratuity. He however states that the Board would pay all retirement benefits on the basis of his last revision of pay treating him continuous in service from the date of his appointment till the date of his retirement i.e. 29.09.2018. The amount of gratuity paid shall be deducted from the retirement benefits and that he shall not be entitled