The mandatory nature of the conditions in Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act and the protection it affords to workmen against unfair labor practices by the employer.

JUDGMENT :

VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.

1. Since the issue involved in both these appeals is with regard to the disputes related to the reinstatement and backwages, both these appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order and facts of Letters Patent Appeal No.100/2023 are considered.

2. Both these appeals are filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order rendered by the learned Single Judge, whereby learned Single Judge has dismissed the petitions filed by the appellant - original petitioner.

3. Heard learned advocate, Mr. H.S. Munshaw for the appellant - original petitioner and learned advocate, Mr. U.T. Mishra for the respondent nos.1 to 7.

4. Learned advocate, Mr. Munshaw appearing for the appellant - original petitioner submitted that the respondents were offered work for the scarcity relief work during the period between 1999 to 2001 and immediately thereafter, they filed Reference (IT) No.80/2001 before the Industrial Tribunal and during the pendency of the said reference, the respondents filed an application under Section 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "ID Act" for short), wherein the respondents prayed that interim relief be granted in favour of the respondents by directing the appellant - original petitioner that the services of the respondents may not be terminated. It is submitted that the said application came to be disposed of. It is further submitted that the respondents alleged that on 15.07.2002, their services were terminated without seeking approval from the concerned Industrial Tribunal, Jamnagar and, therefore, the respondents filed an application under Section 33(A) of the ID Act. It is submitted that the Industrial Tribunal, vide order dated 10.03.2017, partly allowed the said application and thereby directed the appellant - petitioner that the respondents be reinstated with 50% backwages.

5. Learned advocate further submits that the appellant - petitioner, therefore, filed captioned petition challenging the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal and the learned Single Judge, vide impugned order, dismissed the said petition, therefore, the appellant - original petitioner has preferred the present appeals.

6. Learned advocate has assailed the impugned order by contending that the respondents were offered work for scarcity relief for water supply and they had worked for one and half years only, thereafter immediately, they filed Reference before the Industrial Tribunal for regularization of services. It is submitted that as the work, for which the respondents were engaged, was over, in the year 2002, their services were terminated on 15.07.2002. It is further submitted that in the present case, provisions of ID Act are not applicable, inspite of that, the Industrial Tribunal passed an award, by which, the direction was issued to reinstate the respondents with 50% backwages. It is also contended that the learned Single Judge has wrongly placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the HOn'ble Supreme Court in case of Jaipur Zila Sahkari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. Vs. Shri Ram Gopal Sharma & Ors., reported in 2002 (92) FLR 667. Learned advocate, therefore, urged that the impugned order be set aside.

7. Alternatively, learned advocate submitted that the Labour Court has committed an error while awarding 50% backwages to the respondents. It is submitted that the Industrial Tribunal has not assigned any reason while awarding 50% backwages to the respondents. Learned advocate has referred to the observations made by the Tribunal in Paragraph No.20 of the award, which was under challenge before the learned Single Judge. Learned advocate, therefore, urged that this Court may set aside the award passed by the Tribunal to the extent of granting 50% backwages to the respondents.

8. On the other hand, learned advocate, Mr. Mishra appearing for the respondents, after taking instructions from the concerned respondents, at the outset submitted that if the d