JUDGMENT : C.L. Soni, J. 1. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is against the judgment dated 22.6.2005 passed by learned Single Judge in the petition preferred by the appellant against the award dated 3.7.1998 made by the Labour Court, whereby the Labour Court ordered the appellant to pay 50% of back wages for the period from 7.4.1986 to the date on which the respondent reached to the age of his superannuation. The Labour Court has observed that since the respondent has reached the age of superannuation, no order for his reinstatement is passed. 2. Learned advocate Mr. R.A. Mishra for the appellant submitted that the respondent had stopped coming on duty from 17.9.1974, he was not even available at the headquarter and therefore, departmental inquiry was initiated against him for remaining unauthorized absent from duty. Mr. Mishra submitted that in the inquiry proceedings, the respondent had clearly stated that he was not available at his headquarter and he had no reason for remaining absent from duty. Mr. Mishra submitted that in regular departmental inquiry, charge of remaining absent from duty was proved against the respondent and on that basis, he was dismissed from service. Mr. Mishra submitted that though against the order of dismissal passed under the statutory Rules, reference under the Industrial Disputes Act was not competent, the respondent raised industrial dispute. Mr. Mishra submitted that though departmental inquiry was not challenged before the Labour Court and though reference was raised after a period of 12 years, the Labour Court passed the above-referred order in favour of the respondent which was not permissible. Mr. Mishra submitted that the learned Single Judge ought not to have confirmed such order of the Labour Court and given further direction for payment of dues as per the award of the Labour Court. 3. As against the above arguments, learned advocate Mr. I.S. Superhia submitted that the appeal before this Court is not maintainable. Mr. Supehia submitted that the Labour Court has found that no evidence on the issue of departmental inquiry was produced before the Labour Court and that considering the nature of charge of remaining absent from duty, punishment was on higher side. Mr. I.S. Superhia submitted that the appeal before this Court is not maintainable. Mr. Supehia submitted that the Labour Court has found that no evidence on the issue of departmental inquiry was produced before the Labour Court and that considering the nature of charge of remaining absent from duty, punishment was on higher side. Mr. Supehia submitted that the Labour Court has exercised its discretion only for award of back wages from the date of reference till the respondent reached his superannuation and since such powers were available with the Labour Court, it cannot be said that the Labour Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction. Mr. Supehia submitted that since the appellant did not produce any evidence to the effect that the respondent could raise dispute as a workman before the Labour Court and since no other evidence as regards departmental proceedings was produced before the Labour Court, the learned Single Judge has rightly confirmed the order of the Labour Court and committed no error in issuing necessary direction to the appellant to comply with the directions issued by the Labour Court. 4. Having heard learned advocates for the parties, we find that since the learned Single Judge has issued certain direction in exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution while confirming the order of the Labour Court, the appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is maintainable before us. 5. Learned Single Judge has observed that the respondent had produced documentary evidence as regards his ill-health and therefore, contention raised by the appellant that the respondent had remained absent from duty willingly could not be accepted. Learned Judge has further observed that the contention that the respondent was not willing to work also was not tenable since the respondent has not voluntarily resigned from service. 6. However, what could not be disputed by Mr. Supehia is that there was a regular departmental inquiry held against the respondent. The documentary evidence as regards such departmental inquiry held against the respondent was produced before the Labour Court. The Labour Court has in fact referred about such documentary evidence in connection with the departmental inquiry held against the respondent in its order. We find from the record of the case that the regular departmental inquiry was held against the respondent. The documentary evidence as regards such departmental inquiry held against the respondent was produced before the Labour Court. The Labour Court has in fact referred about such documentary evidence in connection with the departmental inquiry held against the respondent in its order. We find from the record of the case that the regular departmental inquiry was held against the respondent. The copy of the charge-sheet dated 13.10.1975 issued to the respondent under the Gujarat Panchayat (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1964, the copy of the inquiry report holding that the charge against the respondent was proved against the respondent and the copy of the final order dated 3.11.1976 passed against the respondent for his removal from service under the above-said Rules produced on record are sufficient to show that a full-fledge departmental inquiry was held against the respondent and the punishment was imposed under the statutory Rules. 7. At this stage, it is required to be noted that during the inquiry, the respondent clearly stated that he was not remaining at headquarter and that he was not in a position to give any reason for remaining absent from duty. He has also stated that he did not submit any report for his absence from duty to the Taluka Development Officer. In his statement, he has further stated that he did not want to serve and did not want to resume duty. Lastly, after the above such statements in the departmental inquiry, he voluntarily stated that he could not perform his duty on account of his ill-health and in fact, requested to grant him invalidity benefits. What appears from such statement is that he wanted invalid pension for not resuming duty. 8. What is not in dispute is that the departmental inquiry was never under challenge. We therefore, find that the respondent being Panchayat servant and removed from service in exercise of powers under the statutory Rules, reference before the Labour Court was not competent at all. In any case, even if reference was maintainable, such reference was made for the dispute raised by the respondent after more than 10 years from the date of his alleged termination in the year 1976. In such facts situation, it was not a case of grant of any relief by the Labour Court to the respondent. In any case, even if reference was maintainable, such reference was made for the dispute raised by the respondent after more than 10 years from the date of his alleged termination in the year 1976. In such facts situation, it was not a case of grant of any relief by the Labour Court to the respondent. When the respondent himself stated during the inquiry that he did not want to serve and did not want to resume duty and when he accepted that there was no good reason for remaining absent from duty and even accepted that he had not sent any report for not attending the duty and when misconduct of unauthorized absence was proved against the respondent, his request for invalidity benefits by simply stating that he was not keeping good health could not have been taken as a documentary evidence as proof of his ill-health by the learned Single Judge. 9. We find that when the competent authority passed the order of removal of the respondent from service under the statutory Rules, it was not a case of grant of reinstatement by the Labour Court. Consequently, there was no question of granting any back wages to the respondent. We are therefore, of the view that the Labour Court had exceeded in its jurisdiction in granting relief to the respondent in absence of challenge to the departmental inquiry and in view of the exercise of the powers by the competent authority of removing the respondent under the statutory Rules. The learned Single Judge, therefore, could not have confirmed the order of the Labour Court granting 50% back wages. 10. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 22.6.2005 in Special Civil Application No. 1511 of 1999 and the award of the Labour Court dated 3.7.1998 passed in Reference (LCN) No. 669 of 1986 are quashed and set aside. No order as to costs.