JUDGMENT: 1.0 This Court has no reason to believe that petitioner is fond of visiting to the Courts, be it Labour Court or High Court. A judicial notice can be taken of the fact that a person, who is put in such a miserable position for which he has no other remedy, he comes to the Court, out of compulsion. 2.0 In the present case, respondent – Sahara India Ltd. has put the petitioner in such a precarious condition that he is rendered remedyless by taking contradictory pleas before the Labour Court as a joyride, which was at the cost of the petitioner herein. Though the workman has produced vide exh. 9 – List, as many as 18 documents, the learned Judge taking the matter too casually and not approaching to the question which was required to be approached and answered, has dismissed the Reference. It is surprising that learned Judge of Labour Court has mentioned in Para 11 that, 'at one stage, even if it is assumed that the date of terminating the services of the petitioner is 16/06/1998, then it is not proved that the workman has worked for 240 days in the immediate past 12 months and therefore, Reference of the workman is not proved'. 2.1 In Para 12, the learned Judge has mentioned that, 'from the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that the second party workman is not terminated by the first party but has only suspended and therefore, the second party workman is not entitled to get any relief prayed for in the Reference and therefore, the Reference of the workman is liable to be rejected and hence, the following order is passed'. 2.2 The award and order runs into seven pages. One page goes in Title and the formal opening paragraph. Page Nos. 2 to 4 have gone recording the case of the workman and the fact that the Notice issued to the first party was served and the first party appeared and filed its Reply vide exh. 8. Page Nos. 3 and 4 reproduce the documents produced by the workman. Page 5, after recording Issues and its Reply, the discussion starts and that discussion is over in three paragraphs running into 2½ pages, shows the quantum of mind applied to the issue involved in the matter. 8. Page Nos. 3 and 4 reproduce the documents produced by the workman. Page 5, after recording Issues and its Reply, the discussion starts and that discussion is over in three paragraphs running into 2½ pages, shows the quantum of mind applied to the issue involved in the matter. If the first party establishment had chosen not to produce any evidence, the learned Judge ought to have dealt with the stand of the workman in a required manner. It is the case of the respondent – establishment that, 'we have suspended second party workman on 6th January 1997' then, Court should have asked the first party establishment to show the payment of subsistence allowance to the second party and if that is not paid, the Court could have as well impressed upon the first party establishment that the respondent – workman be taken back in service. 2.3 It is really painful that this very workman was awarded 'Certificate of Appreciation' besides, he being promoted along with the letter regarding satisfaction with the work performed by the petitioner – workman. There could not be any more glaring facts, ill-designed to harass a workman, which may as well lead to suicide committed by the workman, which is clear from the contents of Para 3 of the Written Statement filed on behalf of respondent – establishment. Para 3 reads as under: “Shri K.K. Solanki did not report for marking his attendance since second week of November 1997. The said worker has not reported to collect his subsistence allowance which is still lying credit in our salary account. Since the applicant workman has neither been terminated nor dismissed nor his resignation has been accepted, therefore the relation of employer and employee still exists. The opposite parties, therefore pleads before this Hon'ble Court that since the relation of master and servant is persisting hence, this Hon'ble Court cannot take cognizance of alleged illegal termination as defined under section 2(A) and Section 10(1) (conciliation) of the Industrial Dispute Act of 1947.” 2.4 In fact, this is a fit case wherein, the learned Judge of the Labour Court should have granted relief by asking the respondent – establishment to, at least, pay the so-called substance allowance, which is reported to have been lying credit in the salary account with the establishment to the petitioner – workman. 3.0 On perusal of the papers, including that of a judgment in Criminal Case No. 609 of 2003, which was filed against the petitioner – workman at the instance of the respondent establishment, it is clear that a mighty company can harass a workman who is never at the same pedestal with the mighty employer by resorting to various tactics / tricks and can make the life miserable of the workman. Even the Criminal Court has recorded in Para 12 that, 'by exh. 100 and 101, opinion of handwriting expert is produced. The handwriting expert was not examined but the opinion does not contain any clear opinion. The signature, which was alleged to have been made by the accused or was alleged to have been got made from somebody, the handwriting expert has not given any opinion about that document'. 3.1 The learned Judge (Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandevi) has recorded in the same paragraph that, 'the allegations made against accused, were not proved beyond doubt. The prosecution was not able to establish / prove that the amount was misappropriated dishonestly. It is the responsibility of the complainant to prove the complaint. The complainant examined has only supported the facts of the complaint but has not uttered a single word about the document in question. In cross-examination, this witness has admitted that the work of the accused was satisfactory. After this incident (the incident which was the basis of filing criminal complaint) the accused was granted promotion. For his work, he was granted special allowance'. It is in light of this cross-examination that the learned Judge expressed his inability to understand as to under which circumstances that the complaint is filed against the accused after lapse of seven years. 3.2 This is only an illustration of the well thought plan with which, the accused is subjected to torture of facing a criminal trial. 4.0 In the result, the Court finds that the petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The award and order dated --/04/2011 passed in Reference (LCV) No. 4 of 1999 by the learned Judge of Labour Court No. 1, Vadodara is quashed and set aside. 4.1 The respondent establishment is directed to immediately allow the petitioner to resume duty in accordance with law. The award and order dated --/04/2011 passed in Reference (LCV) No. 4 of 1999 by the learned Judge of Labour Court No. 1, Vadodara is quashed and set aside. 4.1 The respondent establishment is directed to immediately allow the petitioner to resume duty in accordance with law. The respondent establishment has treated the workman 'under suspension' hence the respondent establishment is directed to send the amount of subsistence allowance from the date of suspension till the date he is allowed to resume duty by Demand Draft, by RPAD, at the address of the petitioner workman, which is mentioned in the present petition being: Kantibhai K. Solanki, 5-Mansuri Society, Nr. Railway Padhariya Colony, Anand without wasting any time. 4.2 The respondent establishment shall reinstate the petitioner on his original post with continuity of service with full back wages. The amount paid by way of subsistence allowance may be adjusted at the time of paying back wages. 4.3 Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs. 5.0 At this juncture, learned advocate Mr. Majmudar for the respondent establishment requested that this judgment and order awarding reinstatement and back wages be stayed. 5.1 The request is found to be in furtherance of the harassment, which is caused to the petitioner workman till date and therefore, the same is declined.