JUDGMENT : Ravi R. Tripathi, J. 1. Special Civil Application No.16624 of 2010 is filed by 'W H Brady & Company Limited' being aggrieved by award and order dated 14/09/2010, a copy of which is produced at 'Annexure - A' to this petition whereby the learned Judge of the Labour Court No.5, Ahmedabad was pleased to pass an order in Reference (LCA) No.388 of 2002 of payment of 20% back wages with incidental benefits, within 30 days from the date of publication of the award. Special Civil Application No. 14926 of 2010 is filed by 'Sulochana A R' challenging the same award and order dated 14/09/2010 passed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court No.5, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No.388 of 2002. The parties being common, they are referred to as 'establishment' and 'the workman'. The case of the establishment is that workman is not entitled to any back wages; whereas the case of the workman is that she is entitled for 100% back wages and, grant of only 20% back wages is nothing, but a mockery of justice. Learned Advocate, Mr.S K Gusain, appearing for the workman submitted that the workman was before the Court for enforcing her rights and the learned Judge of the Labour Court was expected to adjudicate the right of the workman and if at all the workman has a right to receive the back wages, the learned Judge ought to have awarded 100% back wages. Learned Advocate for the workman submitted that awarding 20% back wages sounds like awarding some petty amount as an act of charity. Learned Advocate for the workman emphatically submitted that the learned Judge ought to have decided that the workman is entitled to full back wages taking into consideration the facts of the case. Learned Advocate for the workman submitted that firstly there are no reasons set out for awarding only 20% back wages. In the alternative assuming for the sake of argument that some reasons are set out then those reasons are not legal, germane and convincing. Learned Advocate for the workman, therefore, submitted that the award and order under challenge be quashed and set aside and 100% back wages be awarded. 2. In the alternative assuming for the sake of argument that some reasons are set out then those reasons are not legal, germane and convincing. Learned Advocate for the workman, therefore, submitted that the award and order under challenge be quashed and set aside and 100% back wages be awarded. 2. The facts of the case which are set out in award and order are as under: Reference (LCA) No.388 of 2002 was remanded to the Labour Court by this Court by order dated 24/06/2010 passed in Special Civil Application No.29653 of 2007. The order passed by this Court in SCA No.29653 of 2007 is produced at page No.67 of the workman's petition, relevant part of that order reads as under: "11. In light of aforesaid two decisions of apex court and also in light of facts of present case, and after perusal of award passed by labour court, it is apparent from record that labour court has committed gross error in denying full back wages for interim period without giving any reason in support of such conclusion. Denial of back wages for whole period is based on unreasoned order. Therefore, according to my opinion, while exercising discretionary power, labour court should have to give reason in support of its conclusion which shows application of mind by labour court. Denial of total back wages for interim period without assigning reasons shows total non application of mind on the part of labour court. Therefore, it is an apparent error committed by labour court in not giving reason in support of its conclusion to deny total back wages for interim period and, therefore, award dated 6th September, 2007 in respect to denial of back wages for interim period is required to be quashed and set aside while maintaining award of reinstatement with continuity of service in tact. Therefore, direction of denying total back wages for interim period is hereby quashed and set aside while remanding matter back to labour court to decide question of back wages a fresh without disturbing finding of granting reinstatement with continuity of service to original post and labour court shall have to examine only question of back wages on the basis of evidence on record and for that, no further evidence is required to be taken by labour court from both parties. This matter has been remanded back for limited purpose that whatever decision is to be taken by labour court in respect to question of back wages, labour court must give reasons in support of its conclusion. For that, both parties are having liberty to make submissions before labour court only in respect to question of back wages and that submission is required to be considered by labour court, Ahmedabad while determining question of back wages for interim period but except that, no fresh evidence is required to be led by either side before labour court. It is directed to labour court to decide this question of back wages within three months from the date of receiving copy of present order and to decide question of back wages after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties in accordance with law within period of three months from date of receiving copy of present order. Accordingly, present petition is allowed and award passed by labour Court Ahmedabad dated 6th September, 2007 in Reference (LCA) No. 388 of 2002 is hereby quashed and set aside in so far as it relates to denial of back wages for interim period and matter is remanded back to labour court Ahmedabad to decide only question of back wages after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties and then to pass appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law within three months from date of receiving copy of this order. It is made clear that order of granting reinstatement with continuity of service to original post, passed by labour court has not been disturbed by this court and labour court should not have to re-examine this issue. No fresh evidence is to be permitted to either side by labour court for deciding question of back wages for interim period. Rule is accordingly made absolute in terms indicated herein above with no order as to costs." Learned Advocate for the workman vehemently submitted that though it was observed by this Court while remanding the matter that, '...it is apparent from record that labour court has committed gross error in denying full back wages for interim period without giving any reason in support of such conclusion. Denial of back wages for whole period is based on unreasoned order. Denial of back wages for whole period is based on unreasoned order. Therefore, according to my opinion, while exercising discretionary power, labour court should have to give reason in support of its conclusion which shows application of mind by labour court. Denial of total back wages for interim period without assigning reasons shows total non application of mind on the part of labour court. Therefore, it is an apparent error committed by labour court in not giving reason in support of its conclusion to deny total back wages for interim period and, therefore, award dated 6th September, 2007 in respect to denial of back wages for interim period is required to be quashed and set aside while maintaining award of reinstatement with continuity of service in tact....' the learned Judge of the Labour Court has committed the same error and has failed to assign any reason for passing the order under challenge. (emphasis supplied) Learned Advocate for the workman submitted that according to him only difference between earlier order and the present order is that the learned judge of the Labour Court has now awarded 20% back wages. Learned Advocate for the workman submitted that so far as assigning of reasons is concerned, both the orders do not contain any reason and therefore to that extent order under challenge suffers from, 'thorough non-application of mind'. Learned Advocate for the workman however submitted that his submissions may not be construed to mean that, 'he wants once again remand of the matter'. Learned Advocate for the workman submitted that his request to this Court is to pass an order granting full back wages with reasons for the same. Learned Advocate for the workman invited attention of the Court to paragraph No.7 of the award and order wherein paragraph No.11 of the judgment of this Court remanding the matter is quoted. Learned Advocate for the workman submitted that by this reproduction of paragraph No.11, at least, one thing is clear that the learned Judge of the Labour Court was conscious of the exact direction given by this Court in paragraph No.11. Learned Advocate for the workman submitted that by this reproduction of paragraph No.11, at least, one thing is clear that the learned Judge of the Labour Court was conscious of the exact direction given by this Court in paragraph No.11. Learned Advocate also submitted that it is really painful that even after reproducing paragraph No.11 of the judgment of this Court, the learned Judge has committed an error of not giving reasons for awarding 'only 20% of back wages.' Learned Advocate for the workman submitted that in paragraph No.8 onwards the learned Judge of the Labour Court has set out certain facts like the order of the High Court was received by the Labour Court on 17/07/2010, that pursuant to the order of the High Court Notice was issued to both the parties, that by Exh.54 establishment through its Advocate, Shri P N Shah had given an appearance pursis, that by Exh.56 the Advocate of workman, Shri S.K. Gusain had given appearance pursis. In paragraph No.10 of the award, the learned Judge has recorded further facts like Advocate, Shri Gusain had made oral submissions before the learned Judge of the Labour Court and the same were heard by the Court, that learned Advocate for the workman referred to the decisions on the point of payment of back wages but the same are not produced before the Court, that Exh.58 is the Vakalatnama of Shri Dipakbhai Shukla for the establishment. The learned Judge has also recorded that Advocate, Shri Shukla before making oral submissions did tender an additional affidavit on behalf of the (first party) along with certain annexures - 'A' to 'D', but the learned Judge has not accepted the same in light of the clear direction of this Court in the order by which the matter was remanded. The learned Judge of the Labour Court has though retained the same on record giving respect to the order passed by this Court, but has not passed any order. The learned Judge has taken note of the decisions of the Hon'ble the Apex Court and the decisions of High Court of Gujarat. Learned Advocate for the workman invited attention of the Court to award and order in detail. The learned Judge has taken note of the decisions of the Hon'ble the Apex Court and the decisions of High Court of Gujarat. Learned Advocate for the workman invited attention of the Court to award and order in detail. After inviting attention of the Court to the relevant paragraphs of the award under challenge, the learned Advocate for the workman submitted that paragraph No.13 is the only paragraph wherein the learned Judge has considered and discussed the issue (the entitlement of back wages) because prior thereto as set out herein above is the factual narration. That for ready perusal paragraph No.13 of the award and order is reproduced in its 'English version' as translated by the Translation Branch of the High Court: "13. This Court has read the entire record of this case. Now, considering the record of the case in connection with the submissions made on behalf of the representatives of both the parties with regards to the aforesaid point in this case. The concerned workman has produced oral evidences vide Exhibit No.18 on 17/04/2006 and vide Exhibit No.30 on 24/07/2007 in this case, wherein it has been stated that, the fact stated in the statement of demand Exhibit No.4 is true by stating unemployed against occupation in the heading of Examination in Chief Exhibit No.18. The cross examination to this oral deposition of the concerned workman conducted on behalf of the Institute has been closed by the order Exhibit No.19. The concerned workman has stated unemployed against occupation in the heading of Examination in- Chief-Exhibit No.30 and it has been stated in reply to the question asked by the Institute in the Cross examination that, " It is true that after being terminated from the service by the company, he went to Kerala for residing there for one year. Thereafter, it has been again stated in Cross Examination that, a service has not been obtained in any other institution after termination. Effort has been made to get the service, but the service has not been availed. In this case, the concerned workman has submitted affidavit vide Exhibit No.28 on 06/04/2007 in the Documentary List- Exhibit No.24., wherein he has stated in Para-3 that, he is not a gainful employee during the pending proceedings after termination from service. Effort has been made to get the service, but the service has not been availed. In this case, the concerned workman has submitted affidavit vide Exhibit No.28 on 06/04/2007 in the Documentary List- Exhibit No.24., wherein he has stated in Para-3 that, he is not a gainful employee during the pending proceedings after termination from service. Taking in to consideration the aforesaid evidence on record, on being asked in his cross examination, it has been stated by the concerned workman by accepting the fact that he went to reside in Kerala for one year after he had been terminated from service and further on being asked in his cross examination, it has been stated that he had made efforts to get the service but did not get service. In the said case, no evidences have been adduced showing that the efforts might have been made for service, application might have been made. On the other hand, it has not been proved on behalf of the Institution also that, the concerned workman might have made earnings by way of doing service at some other place in this case. Considering the record of the said case, this Reference Case of the concerned workman has been instituted in the year 2002 and at first, in this case, he had given his depositions vide Exhibit No.18 in the Year 2006 and vide Exhibit No.20 in the Year 2007. Thus, looking to the record, it is found that the concerned workman has given his deposition after the lapse of about four to five years in his case. Under the circumstances and considering the tenure of service rendered in the institute by the concerned workman, I think it proper and just in the interest of justice to pass an order to the effect that, the institute shall pay the 20 % salary towards back wages to the concerned workman. It is the humble opinion of this court, If such an order is passed, the ends of the justice shall be met. Thus, I hold that the concerned workman is entitled to get 20% salary towards back wages from the institution. In this case, the judgments of the apex court have been cited by the Institute in support of its submission, I have read all the said judgments and I humbly accept the principles established therein. Thus, I hold that the concerned workman is entitled to get 20% salary towards back wages from the institution. In this case, the judgments of the apex court have been cited by the Institute in support of its submission, I have read all the said judgments and I humbly accept the principles established therein. As the facts of the case in the said judgments and the facts of the case on hand being different, it is the humble opinion of this court that, the principles established by the Hon'ble Court in the aforesaid judgments are not helpful to the Institute." 3. Learned Advocate for the workman submitted that the learned Judge of the Labour Court has though referred to the oral evidence of the workman dated 17/04/2006 (Exh.18) and dated 24/07/2007 (Exh.30), has not appreciated the same in its true perspective. The learned Advocate for the workman submitted that in the title of Exh.18 (chief examination) it is mentioned on the top, 'profession - nothing'. It is stated by the workman in oral evidence that the contents of statement of claim (Exh.4) are true. The cross-examination of the workman was closed by order at Exh.19. In chief examination (Exh.30), the workman has stated in the title 'profession - unemployed', in cross-examination answering to the question put by the establishment the workman stated that, 'it is true that after the company terminated the workman, 'for one year she had gone to reside at Kerala'. Thereafter it is stated in the cross-examination that, 'after she was terminated, she did not get employment in any other establishment'; 'that though she tried to get job, she did not get the same'. The workman with list-Exh.24, an affidavit dated 06/04/2007 (Exh.28) is produced wherein in paragraph No.3 it is stated that, 'after she was terminated during the pending proceedings, she was not gainfully employed'. 4. Learned Advocate for the workman submitted that after narrating the aforesaid contents of the chief examination and the cross-examination of the workman, the learned Judge in 6th line has appreciated the evidence and came to the conclusion that, 'after the workman was terminated she had gone to reside at Kerala for one year' and in cross-examination it is admitted that, 'though she tried for job she did not get the same'. But then it is not stated by the workman that, 'she had tried to get the job; had applied for the same, no such evidence is produced. The learned Judge then proceeds to put it on record that a second party establishment has also not proved that the workman had served anywhere else and had earned. 5. Learned Advocate for the workman submitted that the sub-paragraph which follows contains material which shows as to how the mind of the learned Judge of the Labour Court was working. Learned Advocate submitted that in the next subparagraph it is mentioned by the learned Judge that, 'taking into consideration the record of this case it is clear that the reference case is of the year 2002 and for the first time the workman has deposed in the year 2006 (Exh.18) and thereafter in 2007 (Exh.20)'. Thus, the workman has given deposition after four to five years and in these circumstances and taking into consideration the period for which the workman had served with the establishment, in the opinion of the Labour Court, it is deemed proper to order the establishment to pay 20% back wages in the interest of justice and it is just and proper and will serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the learned Judge of the Labour Court has held the workman to be entitled to receive 20% back wages. Learned Advocate for the workman submitted that the learned Judge has not taken trouble to discuss any of the decisions and has avoided doing so by saying that, 'decisions cited by the establishment in support of their case are read and I accept with all humility the principles established in those decisions, but as the facts of those decisions and the facts of the case on hand are different, in the opinion of the Court, the principle laid down by the Court are not helpful.' 6. Learned Advocate for the workman invited attention of the Court to Exh. 18 dated 17/04/2006, Exh.13 dated 24/07/2007 and Exh. 28 (affidavit dated 06/04/2007). Learned Advocate for the workman invited attention of the Court to Exh. 18 dated 17/04/2006, Exh.13 dated 24/07/2007 and Exh. 28 (affidavit dated 06/04/2007). Learned Advocate for the workman submitted that, 'the learned Judge of the Labour Court has flouted the order of this Court.' Explaining the submissions further, the learned Advocate submitted that this Court by judgment and order dated 24/06/2010 passed in SCA No. 29653 of 2007 directed the Labour Court, 'to pass a reasoned order on the question of back wages', but as the award and order stands there are no reasons assigned and therefore to that extent the learned Judge has flouted the order passed by this Court. Learned Advocate for the workman then invited attention of the Court to the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India vis-a-vis article 226 of the Constitution of India and submitted that there being error committed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court, this is a fit case for issuing writ of certiorari. Learned Advocate for the workman reiterated that order awarding 20% back wages is without any reasons. Learned Advocate for the workman also referred to the broader meaning of the term 'State'. He submitted that as held in the matter of 'Keshvanand Bharati', even judiciary right from 'Labour Court' to 'Apex Court' is included in the term 'State' and that being so even judiciary cannot act in an arbitrary manner. He very emphatically submitted that, 'rule of law' and acting in an 'arbitrary manner' do not go together. 7. Learned Advocate for the workman then submitted that award of back wages is an ancillary relief to the main relief of reinstatement. Learned Advocate submitted that normally 'a rule of thumb' applies unless there are specific valid reasons to deviate, the ancillary relief must follow the main relief and therefore when the learned Judge of the Labour Court has awarded reinstatement on the original post, the learned Judge ought to have awarded full back wages for the intervening period. Learned Advocate submitted that denial of back wages is unjust and arbitrary and hence the order of 20% back wages is required to be quashed and set aside and order of 100% back wages for the intervening period is required to be passed so as to serve the ends of justice. 8. Learned Advocate submitted that denial of back wages is unjust and arbitrary and hence the order of 20% back wages is required to be quashed and set aside and order of 100% back wages for the intervening period is required to be passed so as to serve the ends of justice. 8. Learned Advocate for the workman emphatically submitted that employer has perpetuated injustice to the workman, that the employer has utilised the money payable to the workman for all this period, that the employer has exploited the workman. Learned Advocate for the workman submitted that the workman has put in 20 years of service and has thus spent prime years of her life in the service of the establishment. 9. In support of the submissions, learned Advocate for the workman relied upon the following decisions. 1. In the matter of 'Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation reported in ' AIR 2010 SC 1116 : 2010 (124) FLR 700 (SC)'. Learned Advocate pressed into service observations made by the Hon'ble the Apex Court in paragraph Nos.17 to 46. 2. In the matter of 'M/s. Reetu Marbles v. Prabhakant Shukla, reported in AIR 2010 SC 397 : 2010 (124) FLR 72 (SC)'. 3. In the matter of 'Hammu and others v. State of M.P., reported in AIR 1979 SC 175'. Learned Advocate pressed into service the observations made in paragraph Nos.9 and 18. 4. In the matter of 'Gammon India Limited v. Niranjan Dass, reported in AIR 1984 SC 500 : 1984 (48) FLR 310 (SC)'. 5. In the matter of 'Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd., etc. etc., v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha and others reported in AIR 1980 SC 1896 : 1980(40) FLR 152 (SC)'. Learned Advocate pressed into service observations made by the Hon'ble the Apex Court in paragraph Nos.143, 144 AND 148. 6. In the matter of 'DTC v. Ishwar Singh reported in 2007 (7) SCR 197' wherein the learned Advocate drew the attention of the Court to paragraph No.7 and invited attention of the Court to different decisions of the Hon'ble Apex court which are referred to in the said decision. 10. 6. In the matter of 'DTC v. Ishwar Singh reported in 2007 (7) SCR 197' wherein the learned Advocate drew the attention of the Court to paragraph No.7 and invited attention of the Court to different decisions of the Hon'ble Apex court which are referred to in the said decision. 10. As against this, learned Advocate, Mr.D.G. Shukla, appearing for the petitioner - establishment in SCA No.16624 of 2010 strenuously contested the matter filed by the workman and submitted that while the petition filed by the workman deserves to be dismissed, the petition filed by the establishment is required to be allowed and award and order directing the establishment to pay 20% back wages is required to be quashed and set aside. 11. Learned Advocate for the establishment sought permission to invite attention of the Court to Annexure - B to his petition (Page No. 27 to 25) - the reply of the establishment to the statement of claim of the workman. The learned Advocate for the establishment submitted that he is conscious of the fact that present petition is filed to challenge the order awarding 20% back wages only. Similarly, the petition filed by the workman is for grant of 100% back wages for the intervening period. The learned Advocate for establishment submitted that to serve the ends of justice the Court may permit the learned Advocate for the establishment to invite the attention of the Court to the facts of the case which gave rise to the present petitions. In this regard, learned Advocate invited attention of the Court to the facts set out in the reply to the statement of claim - Annexure - B of petition filed by workman. 02/09/2011. The learned Advocate for establishment submitted that besides the denial of the contents of 'statement of claim', the facts set out in subparagraph (4) of paragraph No.16 of the reply which is produced as Annexure - B (Page Nos.27 to 35 of SCA No.16624 of 2010) shows the conduct of the workman on the basis of which the charge of negligence was levelled against her. The same are:- (i) STD Telephone Register is not maintained; (ii) Personal STD & ISD calls were made and entry of those calls are not made in the Register; (iii) No permission was obtained from the authorised Officer for making those calls; (iv) Instructions of the higher officer were dishonoured; (v) Not co-operating with the co-workers. The workman was served with a show-cause notice dated 06/07/2001. The workman filed reply explaining the aforesaid averments/allegations, but the same was not found satisfactory. The respondent workman was served with letter dated 03/08/2001 intimating her the suspension and preliminary inquiry, which was received by her under her signature. The workman was served with a charge-sheet on 10/08/2001 which was accepted by her. The explanation tendered by her was not found satisfactory. The workman was served with show-cause notice on 09/09/2001. One Mr.Janardan Bhatt was appointed as Inquiry Officer and this was intimated to her. On 21/09/2001 the departmental inquiry was conducted. The workman was intimated about the place and time and was asked to remain present in the departmental inquiry. One Mr.R R Parikh, produced a copy of complaint and the details of the misconduct of the workman were produced. On 28/09/2001 the workman was present and she was given an opportunity to defend herself. The workman was given full opportunity to defend herself in departmental inquiry. The workman was intimated by Registered Post A.D., to remain present on different dates in departmental inquiry. The workman was given opportunity to cross-examine the complainant, to produce the evidence and examine the witnesses in defence. The workman was given findings/conclusions of the departmental inquiry. The inquiry report of the Inquiry Officer was served to her wherein the misconduct and negligence was held proved. The workman was then given second show-cause notice. After this notice was received by her, no satisfactory explanation was given. On the basis of the findings of the Inquiry Officer, a responsible Officer of the establishment passed order dated 24/12/2001 discharging the workman. On 17/01/2002, the ex gratia amount, leave amount, suspension allowance, one month notice pay totalling to L 12,509/- was sent to her by cheque which was accepted. 12. On the basis of the findings of the Inquiry Officer, a responsible Officer of the establishment passed order dated 24/12/2001 discharging the workman. On 17/01/2002, the ex gratia amount, leave amount, suspension allowance, one month notice pay totalling to L 12,509/- was sent to her by cheque which was accepted. 12. In the reply in sub-paragraph No.(16) of paragraph No.16, the petitioner - establishment asked for permission to prove the misconduct of the workman before the Court, in the event the Hon'ble Court comes to the conclusion that, workman was not given sufficient opportunity in the departmental proceedings by permitting the establishment to produce evidence and examine witnesses. 13. Learned Advocate for petitioner - establishment in SCA No. 16624 of 2010 submitted that first award dated 06/09/2007 in Reference (LCA) No. 388 of 2002 is produced as Annexure - H of SCA No. 16624 of 2010, whereby the reference was partly allowed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court No. 8, Ahmedabad. The learned Judge was pleased to order 'reinstatement' at the original post with continuity of service from the date of discharge. The learned Judge did not pass any order with regard to back wages. However, the learned Judge was pleased to order payment of L 1,000/- towards cost, to be paid by the establishment. The learned Judge was pleased to order that the award and order be implemented within 30 days from the date of publication of the award. Learned Advocate for the petitioner - establishment invited attention of the Court to relevant part of the said award wherein at internal page No.17 the learned Judge has recorded that, 'in this case second party workman has accepted that departmental inquiry was held; that the papers of the departmental proceedings were produced by the establishment at Exh.14. By Exh.40 the charge-sheet served to the workman and by Exh.42 the communication intimating the departmental inquiry and appointment of Inquiry Officer was produced. Exh.43 to 45 were the papers of departmental proceedings; whereas Exh.48 was the discharge order and Exh.49 was to show the payment of notice pay and other amounts. Exh.39 was pursis given by the representative of the workman, requesting to appreciate the proportionality of the punishment and justification of the penalty imposed with reference to misconduct, while exercising jurisdiction conferred by Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Exh.39 was pursis given by the representative of the workman, requesting to appreciate the proportionality of the punishment and justification of the penalty imposed with reference to misconduct, while exercising jurisdiction conferred by Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Judge has recorded that, 'thus there is no challenge to the legality of the departmental proceedings'. Learned Advocate for the petitioner - establishment next invited attention of the Court to internal page No.18 (running page No.67) wherein the learned Judge of the Labour Court has recorded that, 'the workman has taken a contention in Exh.26- rejoinder that higher officers had sexually harassed the workman'. The learned Judge has also recorded that, 'the workman has not taken this contention in Exh.4-'statement of claim'. What is mentioned is that, 'they were keeping grudge against the workman'. It will be appropriate to take note of the fact that, the workman was serving for last 20 years as a P.A. (Personal Assistant) of the higher officers. The learned Judge has recorded that, 'according to subsection (3) of Section 11 of the ID Act, the Civil Court's jurisdiction is available with the Labour Court and therefore the workman was required to amend the 'statement of claim' for raising such contention. The learned Judge has then recorded that, 'therefore after the workman was discharged from service on 24/12/2001, to raise such contention in the year 2007 by rejoinder , are not tenable in light of the provisions of law and the said contention does not find prima-facie support from the record of the case of the workman'. (emphasis supplied) In this regard the learned Judge of the Labour Court has referred to a decision of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of 'Municipal Committee, Tarur v. Harpal Singh & Ors.,' reported in AIR 1999 SC 843 : 1998 (80) FLR 680 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that, 'the evidence rendered in Court should be based on claim statement - Courts will have to be alert on this - Inconsistent stand of party in Court will not bring in any result'. 14. The learned Judge has then observed that, 'thus the contention taken in rejoinder that of sexual harassment is not tenable in law'. 14. The learned Judge has then observed that, 'thus the contention taken in rejoinder that of sexual harassment is not tenable in law'. The learned Advocate for the petitioner (establishment) then invited attention of the Court to the operative part of the order which is already referred to herein above. 15. The learned Advocate for the establishment then invited attention of the Court to judgment and order dated 24/06/2010 passed by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice H K Rathod) in SCA No.29653 of 2007, paragraph No.11 of which is reproduced herein above. 16. Learned Advocate for the petitioner - establishment next invited attention of the Court to Annexure - A which is the award of the Labour Court dated 14/09/2010, passed by the learned Judge of Labour Court No.5, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No.388 of 2002 after remand, whereby the learned Judge was pleased to order payment of 20 % back wages with incidental benefits. 17. Learned Advocate for the petitioner - establishment next invited attention of the Court to Annexure - I, J, K & L so as to bring home the submission that there was no wilful attempt on the part of the petitioner - establishment to avoid service of the award dated 14/09/2010. Learned Advocate for the petitioner - establishment submitted that soon after the petitioner - establishment came to know about the award, the petitioner - establishment filed present petition on 22/12/2010. 18. It was the statement of the learned Advocate, Mr.Gusain for workman - petitioner of SCA No.14926 of 2010 that it was only after the filing of the contempt petition being MCA No.3148 of 2007, which was filed on 20/12/2007 wherein Notice was issued on 26/12/2007 returnable on 25/01/2008, that the petitioner - establishment issued order of reinstatement on 26/11/2007. The learned Advocate for the workman submitted that after the award and order dated 06/09/2007, a notice was given by the workman on 05/11/2007 which was received by the petitioner - establishment on 21/11/2007 to which no reply was given and thereafter reinstatement order came to be passed on 26/11/2007 but was posted on 15/12/2007 and received by the workman on 20/12/2007. On close scrutiny of the dates given by the learned Advocate for workman about issuance of notice, the receipt thereof, date of order of reinstatement and the date of its receipt on one hand and the dates of filing of MCA for contempt and the date of issuance of Notice by the Court in the said proceedings, on the other, do not substantiate the allegation made by the learned Advocate for the workman that the petitioner - establishment was wilfully not complying with the award and order dated 06/09/2007. At this juncture, documents produced at Annexure - I, J & K of SCA No.16624 of 2010 becomes relevant. This Court is the opinion that there was genuine communication gap and the petitioner - establishment seems to be right in saying that it received the award late which resulted into late issuance of order of reinstatement. At this juncture, the order of the High Court dated 29/02/2008 passed in contempt proceedings being MCA No.3148 of 2007 in SCA No.29653 of 2007 assumes significance. The relevant part of the said order reads as under: "4. It appears that the Opponent - company has tendered unconditional apology and submitted that the company has decided to close down its Marketing Office at Ahmedabad in March, 2002 due to the continuous losses for the past several years at Ahmedabad. It is further stated by the opponent company that the opponent - company has obeyed the order of Labour Court and has passed the order reinstating her which has been served upon the applicant. 5. We have verified from the papers placed on record. It is true that the applicant is served with an order of reinstatement on her original post as per the award of the Labour Court. We have gone through the contentions made by the opponent- company. It appears that due to the lengthy process,the order of reinstatement passed by the opponent- company was served upon the applicant later on, but it appears that the opponent - company has obeyed and acted upon as per the Award of the Labour Court. So, from the conduct of the opponent - company, it appears that the opponent - company has never disobeyed the Award of the Labour Court and no wilful contempt is committed. So, from the conduct of the opponent - company, it appears that the opponent - company has never disobeyed the Award of the Labour Court and no wilful contempt is committed. It is true that present applicant is a poor workman and no doubt she has obtained award from the Labour Court and even though she has faced some difficulties to get the order of reinstatement, but when the opponent - company has served the order of reinstatement on the applicant, no case for contempt is made out. 6. During course of hearing a contention was raised on behalf of the applicant that even if the company in which the applicant was employed and has been reinstated with posting at Mumbai has closed down its operations at Ahmedabad, there is a sister concern / associate company by the name of M/s. Brady and Morriss Engg. Company Limited functioning from Vatva, Ahmedabad and hence, the applicant must be reinstated with the said associate company. In this regard attention was invited to provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. However, this contention does not merit acceptance for the simple reason that in the first instance such a direction would go beyond the proceedings in which the award came to be made, of which the applicant is seeking implementation. Secondly, and more importantly,the scope of powers available in the present jurisdiction relating to contempt is restricted to examine whether there is any wilful disobedience / defiance of a legally valid order made by a competent Court. No other powers to issue any directions modifying the original order of which contempt is alleged, can be exercised or directions given." 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, a question which arises for consideration of this Court is whether, 'the Labour Court has committed an error in passing the award and order dated 14/09/2010 awarding only 20% back wages with incidental benefits to the workman'. 20. As set out herein above, the learned Judge was conscious of the fact that the Labour Court is required to decide whether the workman is entitled to receive the back wages. 20. As set out herein above, the learned Judge was conscious of the fact that the Labour Court is required to decide whether the workman is entitled to receive the back wages. In paragraph No.13 of the award the learned Judge has recorded that after taking into consideration the rival submissions of both the parties and taking into consideration the record of the case and taking into consideration the oral evidence led by the workman by Exh.18 on 17/04/2006 and Exh.30 dated 24/07/2007 the workman is entitled to only 20% back wages. The learned Judge has recorded that in the cross-examination the workman has stated that, 'after she was discharged from service she had gone to stay at Kerala for one year.' The learned Judge has also recorded that, 'the workman stated in the cross-examination that after her service was terminated by the petitioner - establishment, she did try to get the job but she did not get'. In her affidavit dated 06/04/2007 - Exh.28, she has stated that, 'she was not gainfully employed after she was terminated from the service'. The learned Judge has also recorded that, 'the workman has not produced any documentary evidence in support of her say that she tried to get job after she was terminated from service but she did not get'. The learned Judge has also recorded that, 'the petitioner - establishment has also not been able to prove that the workman had worked somewhere and had derived any income'. (emphasis supplied) The learned Judge has also recorded that, 'the reference is of the year 2002. For the first time by Exh.18 in the year 2006 and thereafter by Exh.30 in the year 2007, the workman has led the evidence'. The learned Judge thereafter recorded that, 'taking into consideration the circumstances and the length of service in the petitioner - establishment it is deemed proper that workman be paid 20% back wages'. May be that the Labour Court has not articulated the reasons very meticulously but at the same time the award of 20% back wages cannot be said to be 'without any reasons'. It is clear from the award and order that the learned Judge was conscious of two facts. May be that the Labour Court has not articulated the reasons very meticulously but at the same time the award of 20% back wages cannot be said to be 'without any reasons'. It is clear from the award and order that the learned Judge was conscious of two facts. One, 'except bald statement by the workman that she tried to get job, she did not get' and on the other side 'the petitioner - establishment not able to lead any evidence of workman being gainfully employed'. It was for the learned Judge to strike a balance between the two and therefore the learned Judge has deemed proper to award 20% back wages. Normally such matters are getting disposed of, by workman and establishment adopting 'give' and 'take' formula. But, in the present case, the learned Advocate appearing for the workman has stated right from the beginning that, 'the workman is not to plead mercy before the petitioner - establishment'. The workman is to convince the Court to grant 100% back wages as of her right, and in case she is not able to do that then also the workman is not to go to the petitioner-establishment for any mercy or indulgence. That being the approach, the learned Judge of the Labour Court had to decide the matter in light of the settled legal position, and this Court has to examine whether the learned Judge has committed any error while deciding. 21. The settled legal position is that it is for the workman to establish before the Court that though sincere efforts were made, the workman was not able to secure any job. To support this contention, the workman must give details of such attempts. In absence of any details of such attempts the presumption can be drawn that the workman did not put in the sincere efforts to get job. Besides, there is a legitimate presumption that a person like the petitioner who is educated will not remain totally unemployed for all these years and therefore the learned Judge cannot be said to have committed an error in awarding 20% back wages. Besides, in this case there is an additional factor which has weighed with the learned Judge of the Labour Court i.e. 'after the service of the workman were terminated, she went to Kerala for one year'. This again is a bald statement. Besides, in this case there is an additional factor which has weighed with the learned Judge of the Labour Court i.e. 'after the service of the workman were terminated, she went to Kerala for one year'. This again is a bald statement. The workman has not produced any convincing material before the learned Judge of the Labour Court to establish that after one year she came back to Ahmedabad and while in Ahmedabad she put in sincere efforts to get job. In absence of any convincing evidence coming on record, this Court cannot find fault with the learned Judge of the Labour Court in striking a balance between the two and awarding 20% back wages. 22. So far as the petitioner - establishment is concerned, it was required to prove that the workman was employed. If the petitioner - establishment is not able to do so then the petitioner - establishment has no other choice then to abide by the verdict of the learned Judge of the Labour Court. In the result, both these petitions fail. The same are accordingly dismissed. The award and order dated 14/09/2010 passed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court No.5, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No.388 of 2002 is maintained. Petition dismissed.