IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1114 of 2025 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/3466/2025 ==========================================================

SHAIKH ABDULMATIN MAHMMADSHAFI Versus ELECON ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR GIRISH M DAS(2323) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA Date : 06/04/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)

1. The workman approached the Labour Court challenging his termination.

2. The Labour Court passed an award directing his reinstatement but refused the back wages.

3. Being aggrieved by this award of reinstatement, the management approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.8667 of 2023. This Court, vide order dated 24.12.2024, allowed the Special Civil Application filed by the management and held that the award of reinstatement was not justified since the workman did not fall within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. This award of reinstatement has not been challenged by the workman and has thus become final.

4. However, the workman, thereafter, chose to file a petition, being Special Civil Application No.3466 of 2025, challenging the denial of back wages by the Labour Court.

5. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order has observed that since the award of reinstatement itself was set aside, the question of entertaining the writ petition filed by the workman claiming back wages was untenable. 6. Consequently, being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the workman is in appeal.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in respect of a similarly situated CNC operator, a Division Bench of this Court had allowed the writ petition and had dismissed the writ petition of the management wherein the award of reinstatement had been passed by the Labour Court and he has in fact been reinstated. He therefore, submits that on the same analogy, the workman would also have to be reinstated.

8. We may, at the outset, as observed earlier, notice that the order of the learned Single Judge setting aside the award of reinstatement has not been challenged by the workman and thus, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in favour of the management has become final. In the light of the said fact, the reliance placed on another judgment, said to have been passed by a Division Bench in respect to another employee, would be of no consequence.

9. The entire basis of the claim of the workman for back-wages is the award of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court. If this award of reinstatement has been set aside by the learned Single Judge and this order has not been challenged by the workman, the question of making a claim for back-wages would not arise. The moment the award of reinstatement is quashed, the claim for back-

wages will stand nullified.

10. Learned counsel for the workman also submitted that the workman should be permitted to withdraw the appeal at this stage.

11. Since it was observed by this Court that no writ appeal has been preferred by the workman challenging the order of the learned Single Judge, learned counsel submits that this amounts to a suggestion from the Court and therefore, he wanted to withdraw the appeal with a liberty to file another an appeal against the order of reinstatement.

12. In our view, this request of the workman is wholly misconceived. If the workman had not chosen to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge by which the award of reinstatement had been set aside, merely on this fact being pointed out, the workman cannot demand that he should be given a right to prefer an appeal at this stage. Consequently this submission is also rejected.

13. We are, therefore, of the view that there is no justification to