JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the respondent. 2. The petitioner has brought under challenge an award dated 3.11.2004 passed by learned Labour Court, Jamnagar in complaint (IT) No. 3 of 1996 whereby the learned Labour Court held that the petitioner university terminated the service of the respondent in violation of provision under Section 33of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"]. The learned Labour Court directed the petitioner university to reinstate the respondent and to pay 100% backwages. The petitioner university is aggrieved by the said award and direction. Hence, this petition. 3. So far as factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record and from the submission by learned counsel for the contesting parties that present respondent, who was working as daily wager in the capacity of Field Labour invoked provision under Section 33 of the Act on the allegation that the petitioner university, by way of victimization, involved him in false case of alleged theft and forcibly extracted his signature on blank paper which was subsequently used as his resignation and thereby, illegally and arbitrarily terminated his service w.e.f. 3.10.1995. The respondent workman also alleged that he issued notice and demanded that he should be reinstated, however, any response from the university was not received and that therefore, he was constrained to file the complaint by invoking Section 33 of the Act in view of the fact that at the relevant time reference of general demand seeking regularization of the workman engaged on daily wage basis was pending. The said complaint was registered as complaint No. 3 of 1996 in the learned Labour Court at Jamnagar. In the statement of claim/plaint, which the respondent herein filed before the learned Labour Court, he reiterated the said allegations and that his service was illegally terminated without conducting any inquiry or without payment of retrenchment compensation and without seeking permission or even approval from the learned Labour Court where the reference seeking relief of regularization was pending. 3.1 Despite service of notice by the learned Labour Court, the petitioner university failed to file any reply/written statement in response to the workman's statement of claim. 3.1 Despite service of notice by the learned Labour Court, the petitioner university failed to file any reply/written statement in response to the workman's statement of claim. However, during the stage of evidence, the university raised the defence that the complainant workman had indulged in misconduct of theft and then, he had voluntarily tendered resignation and stopped reporting for work and that therefore the allegation that the university had acted in violation of Section 33 of the Act is misconceived. The petitioner university raised defence on the ground of voluntary resignation and opposed the reference. The university also relied on the affidavit allegedly made by the respondent workman and the letter of resignation. With reference to the claim that its action of terminating the service of the complainant was in violation of Section 33 of the Act, the petitioner university claimed that since it was the complainant who had voluntarily stopped reporting for work after having been held in case of theft, question of breach of Section 33 of the Act does not arise. The learned Labour Court considered the evidence on record and the rival submissions and reached to the conclusion that the petitioner university failed to establish that the complainant had voluntarily tendered resignation and he had stopped reporting for work on its own volition. The learned Labour Court also came to the conclusion that the petitioner university had committed act in violation of Section 33 of the Act and that the factum of voluntarily resignation is not proved. Having reached the said conclusion, the learned Labour Court passed the award dated 30.11.2004 with aforesaid directions. 4. Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate for the petitioner university, reiterated the defence raised by the university before the learned Labour Court. He submitted that the learned Labour Court failed to appreciate that the complainant had made an affidavit before the learned Magistrate and his own brother was witness to the affidavit and the learned Labour Court also failed to appropriately consider the resignation submitted by the complainant. He also submitted that the learned Labour Court committed error in holding that the complainant had not voluntarily tendered resignation and the complainant had not stopped reporting for work but his service was terminated without following prescribed procedure of law. He also submitted that the learned Labour Court committed error in holding that the complainant had not voluntarily tendered resignation and the complainant had not stopped reporting for work but his service was terminated without following prescribed procedure of law. He submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court are incorrect and unjustified and the directions issued on the basis of such findings are also unsustainable. 5. Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the respondent workman, i.e. the complainant, opposed the petition and submissions by learned advocate for the petitioner university. He submitted that the so called resignation was forged and fabricated and in his deposition the complainant had expressly said that, his signature was obtained on blank paper and subsequently, the said paper was used as resignation, however, he had not voluntarily tendered resignation from service. The respondent also denied his involvement in alleged theft and the learned advocate submitted that since the respondent had raised demand for regularization his service was terminated without following prescribed procedure by law and that therefore there is no error in the award passed by the learned Labour Court. 6. I have considered the submissions by learned counsel for the contesting parties and also considered the material on record. 7. Before proceeding further, it is relevant and necessary to mention that Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate for the petitioner university, submitted and declared that during pendency of the petition, the complainant - present respondent is reinstated in service w.e.f. 9.8.2005 and since then, the respondent - complainant is in service and working with the petitioner university on daily wage basis as field labour. According to Mr. Chauhan, learned counsel, submitted that in view of the said fact the challenge against the direction of reinstatement does not survive now and the only question which survives is with regard to direction to pay backwages. 8. In present case, it is not in dispute that in October-1995, a dispute seeking regularization of the person engaged on daily wage/temporary basis which was registered as Reference (LCD) No. 8 of 1991 was pending and that the respondent being a daily wager was person concerned in the said pending dispute/reference. It is also not in dispute that the service of the respondent herein came to be terminated during pendency of the said reference. It is also not in dispute that the service of the respondent herein came to be terminated during pendency of the said reference. It is also not in dispute that at the relevant time the petitioner university had not filed permission application or approval application contemplated under Section 33(1) or 33(2) of the Act. 9. So as to come out from the said contention (against university's action) raised in light of Section 33of the Act and the defect which occurred on account of alleged non-compliance of Section 33 of the Act, the petitioner university raised defence on the ground that the respondent workman had tendered resignation and he had voluntarily stopped reporting for work and that there was no overt act on the part of the petitioner university and that therefore the provision under Section 33 of the Act was not attracted or applicable and there was no obligation on the part of the petitioner university to either seek prior permission or approval from the Court where the said reference for regularization was pending. However, upon appreciation of evidence and after due and proper discussion and appreciation of entire set of evidence available on record, the learned Labour Court has recorded specific findings that the petitioner university failed to establish that the complainant had voluntarily tendered resignation. The learned Labour Court found various discrepancies in the so called letter of resignation as well as so called affidavit and other documents placed on record by the petitioner university and in view of such unexplained discrepancies and other material on record, the learned Labour Court reached to the conclusion that the factum of resignation and/or the defence raised on the ground that the respondent had voluntarily stopped reporting for work after tendering resignation was not established and was not proved by the university. The said findings of fact recorded by the learned Labour Court is based on appreciation of evidence and it is also supported by cogent reasons recorded by the learned Labour Court and consequently, the said findings of fact does not warrant any interference by this Court. The petitioner university has failed to establish that the said findings of fact is perverse or contrary to the evidence on record. The petitioner university has failed to establish that the said findings of fact is perverse or contrary to the evidence on record. The learned Labour Court has also addressed the issue that if the respondent workman/complainant was caught - as alleged by the university in case of alleged theft on 2.10.1995 and with a view to escaping the police case and criminal proceedings he had (as alleged by the university) tendered resignation then such resignation would have been tendered on the same day i.e. on 2.10.1995 and not on 11.10.1995 i.e. after about 9 days. The learned Labour Court also addressed the issue that even if it is assumed that the complainant had voluntarily tendered resignation on 11.10.1995 so as to escape the consequences of criminal proceedings, etc. then there was no need or justification for making affidavit after about 19 days i.e. on 30.10.1995 and there was no need and/or no justification for the petitioner university to obtain such affidavit from the complainant. The learned Labour Court believed the case of the complainant that his signatures were extracted on blank paper which was subsequently used as his resignation. As mentioned earlier, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said findings of fact recorded by the learned Labour Court since they are not found to be perverse. 10. When the theory of resignation is disbelieved, then, corollary would be that it was the university who terminated the service of the complainant. Further, corollary would be that since at the relevant time a reference of general demand, i.e. for regularization of the persons working on daily wage or temporary basis, i.e. Reference (LCD) No. 8 of 1991, was pending, the respondent would be person "concerned" in the pending dispute/reference and the said action of terminating the service of the complainant would come within purview of Section 33of the Act, which obliged the university to seek permission from the learned Labour Court where the said reference was pending. Even if it were to be believed that it was not a case "misconduct connected with pending dispute" and therefore, there was no obligation to seek prior permission and even if it is presumed that it would be case of seeking approval, then also, breach of Section 33 of the Act stands established because in present case any application - either for permission or for approval - as contemplated under Section 33 of the Act, was not filed. 11. Under the circumstances, normally the direction would be to reinstate the respondent workman. Consequently, there is no reason or justification to interfere with the direction obliging the petitioner university to reinstate the respondent. Thus, the challenge against the said direction fails and deserves to be rejected and is, accordingly, rejected. 12. Even otherwise, as Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate for the petitioner university, declared that the workman/complainant is reinstated since August-2005 and therefore, the challenge does not survive, any separate direction is now not required. However, with a view to providing safeguard against the contention that the reinstatement was made subject to result of the petition, the Court considered it appropriate to examine the aforesaid aspect and this Court is of the view that the said direction by the learned Labour Court is just and proper and does not warrant any interference and the said challenge deserves to be rejected. 13. This takes the Court to the issue related to backwages. 13.1 From oral evidence of the witness examined by the petitioner university, it has emerged that even during his deposition, the witness had declared before the learned Labour Court that the petitioner university was ready to allow the respondent to resume his duty and the respondent - complainant may report for duty. Having regard to the said fact and also considering the fact that the respondent - complainant was engaged as a field labour and he was a daily wager, it is not possible to believe or even assume that the person would have remained unemployed from October-1995 until the date he came to be reinstated, i.e. until August-2005. 14. Having regard to the said fact and also considering the fact that the respondent - complainant was engaged as a field labour and he was a daily wager, it is not possible to believe or even assume that the person would have remained unemployed from October-1995 until the date he came to be reinstated, i.e. until August-2005. 14. Besides this, in view of the fact that the petitioner university had even on earlier occasion declared that the respondent may report for duty, the direction for backwages are not sustainable and the said direction deserves to be set aside and accordingly, the direction obliging the petitioner university to pay 100% backwages is hereby set aside. 15. In the result, the direction to reinstate the complainant - respondent is not disturbed and the said direction is confirmed. The direction to pay backwages is set aside. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.