ORDER : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the applicant, Mr. Mushaw, learned advocate for the Opponent No. 1 and Mr. Amit Barot, learned AGP for the Opponent No. 2-State. 2. RULE. Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate has waived service of Rule for the Opponent No. 1 and Mr. Amit Barot, learned AGP has waived service of Rule for the respondent No. 2-State. 3. At the request of Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the applicant with consent of Mr. Mushaw, learned advocate for the opponent No. 1 and Mr. Amit Barot, learned AGP for the respondent No. 2-State, the application is taken up for hearing and final order today. 4. After Hon'ble Division Bench passed judgment dated 16.06.2014 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 554 of 2013, the applicant herein has taken out present application and prayed that:-- "8(B) Direct the respondents to pay to the applicant original workman salaries available to the applicant from the date of his joining the duty on the basis of order of reinstatement dated 15.04.2013 till this date, immediately. (C) Your Lordships be further be pleased to direct the respondents to regularly pay the salary to the applicant every month for the work done by the applicant on the basis of the order of reinstatement of the applicant dated 15.04.2013." 5. At the time of hearing of present application, Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the opponent-panchayat has already issued order dated 15.04.2013, whereby the petitioner is reinstated, and that therefore, the said grievance of the petitioner does not survive. However, the petitioner is constrained to prefer present application because after having passed the said order, the petitioner is not actually reinstated and wages for the period after the order dated 15.04.2013 are not paid. According to learned advocate for the applicant, the above quote relief(s) are prayed for in the said factual background. 6. So as to consider the application and request by learned advocate for the applicant, it is necessary to consider some relevant facts and the orders passed by the Court in the proceedings. 7. On the allegation that after having employed applicant in September, 1979, Panchayat terminated his service in May, 1984. The applicant herein instituted proceedings before the Gujarat Civil Service Tribunal which was registered as Appeal No. 104/2000/2863. The learned Tribunal rejected the said appeal vide order dated 09.09.2000. 7. On the allegation that after having employed applicant in September, 1979, Panchayat terminated his service in May, 1984. The applicant herein instituted proceedings before the Gujarat Civil Service Tribunal which was registered as Appeal No. 104/2000/2863. The learned Tribunal rejected the said appeal vide order dated 09.09.2000. The ground on which the appeal came to be dismissed is relevant and needs to be taken into consideration. Therefore, the said order is quoted herein below:-- "Heard both the parties. The learned advocate on behalf of the Appellant has produced a certificate about the work of appellant as Record clerk from 22.09.1979 to 08.05.1987 but the certificate bears an interpretation which raises doubt about its authenticity. 2. The learned advocate on behalf of the Respondent has contended that the matter is time barred as the appellants claim of working in the Department for five years is not supported with any other documentary evidence excepting above mentioned certificate. 3. Also the appellant being daily rated employee is not a specified civil servant. Further there is no evidence about the appellant having worked in the Department for all this time and no explanation is forthcoming for the long delay in filing the appeal. 4. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is dismissed it being time barred and also is non-maintainable." 8. After Gujarat Civil Service Tribunal rejected the appeal filed by present applicant on the aforesaid ground and despite the fact that learned Tribunal recorded in the order that there was no evidence about the appellant having worked in the department for the past period, the applicant herein raised an industrial dispute by invoking provision of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The said dispute was referred for adjudication to learned Labour Court at Jamnagar. The reference was registered as Reference (LCJ) 264 of 2001. Thus, in connection with the alleged termination in May, 1984, the applicant herein raised industrial dispute in 2000/01 i.e. after almost 16 years. Learned Labour Court adjudicated the reference and passed award dated 15.09.2006, whereby the learned Labour Court partly allowed the reference and directed the panchayat to reinstate the applicant with continuity of service and to pay 25% back-wages. 9. The panchayat felt aggrieved by the said award and that therefore, it filed writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 26772 of 2006. 10. 9. The panchayat felt aggrieved by the said award and that therefore, it filed writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 26772 of 2006. 10. Interestingly, the applicant-workman also filed a petition and claimed balance back-wages in his writ petition i.e. Special Civil Application No. 28489 of 2007. 11. The said petitions were heard together by the Court. 12. The applicant-workman declared that he does not press the petition for balance back-wages. The Court recorded said stipulation, declaration by the applicant-workman in the judgment dated 07.03.2013. By the said judgment dated 07.03.2012, the Court disposed of the said two petitions and directed, inter alia, that:-- "4. It is, however, required to be noted that the termination of the respondent took place in May, 1984 and the respondent-workman issued notice to the Assistant Labour Commissioner/petitioner only on November 18, 2000. Thus, the respondent-workman whiled away the period of more than 16 years. Considering the above aspect, the Labour Court ought not to have granted the benefit of continuity of service for all purposes in favour of the respondent-workman. 5. In my opinion, since there is a delay of more than 16 years on the part of the respondent-workman in issuing notice to the Assistant Labour Commissioner/petitioner, it would be appropriate to treat such period as dies non. Thus, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court qua continuity is required to be modified accordingly. 6. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition i.e. Special Civil Application No. 26772 of 2006, is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court qua granting of back wages to the respondent-workman is hereby quashed and set aside. The impugned judgment and award qua reinstatement with continuity of service is confirmed. It is, however, clarified that the period from the date of termination of the respondent-workman till the date of issuing notice i.e. from May, 1984 to November 18, 2000, be treated as dies non. The impugned award stands modified accordingly." 13. Aggrieved by the said order dated 07.03.2013, more particularly by the observation and direction by the Court that the period of 16 years during which the applicant workman had not filed the reference in learned Labour Court shall be treated as dies non. 14. During the hearing of the said Letters patent Appeal No. 554 of 2013, the Court recorded detailed order on 21.01.2014. 14. During the hearing of the said Letters patent Appeal No. 554 of 2013, the Court recorded detailed order on 21.01.2014. In the said order dated 21.01.2014 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 554 of 2013, the Court observed, inter alia, that:-- "3. The learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that he is aggrieved by the observations made by the learned Single Judge in his judgment And order dated 7.3.2013 at para-5. This para-5 reads as under: 5. In my opinion, since there is a delay of more than 16 years on the part of the respondent-workman in issuing notice to the Assistant Labour Commissioner/petitioner, it would be appropriate to treat such period as dies non. Thus, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court qua continuity is required to be modified accordingly. 4. During the course of the argument, the Court inquired from the leaned advocate for the appellant that when did he join the services of the District Panchayat. The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that, the appellant joined as Work Charge Mistri in the year 1979. The learned advocate also submitted that, his services were terminated in the month of May, 1984. The Court then inquired as to what was he doing from the year 1984 till he filed reference before the Labour Court. The learned advocate for the appellant invited the attention of the Court to an order passed by the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal in Appeal No. 104/2000/2863, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-B to the petition. This order makes an interesting reading and therefore, the same is reproduced herein below for perusal because the plain reading of this order will reveal that the appellant is guilty of not only the delay in approaching the Labour Court but also, he is guilty of playing mischief in the matter of not only approaching the Labour Court but then approaching the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal. The order reads as under: ORDER Heard both the parties. The learned advocate on behalf of the appellant has produced a certificate about the work of appellant as Record Clerk from 22.9.79 to 8.5.81 but the Certificate bears an interpolation which raises doubt about its authenticity. 2. The order reads as under: ORDER Heard both the parties. The learned advocate on behalf of the appellant has produced a certificate about the work of appellant as Record Clerk from 22.9.79 to 8.5.81 but the Certificate bears an interpolation which raises doubt about its authenticity. 2. The learned advocate on behalf of the respondent has contended that the matter is time barred as the appellants claim of working in the department for five years is not supported with any other documentary evidence excepting about mentioned certificate. 3. Also, the appellant being daily rated employees is not a specified civil servant. Further there is no evidence about the appellant having worked in the department for all this time and no explanation is forthcoming for the long delay in filing the appeal. 4. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is dismissed it being time barred and also is non maintainable (Emphasis supplied). 5. What follows is important. The appellant, original petitioner then served a notice. The Commissioner who in turn must have sent the notice to the Deputy Executive Engineer, Road and Building, Sub- Division (Panchayat), Jamnagar who replied to Assistant Labour Commissioner by letter dated 29.12.2000. This was all in Cell Case No. 417/2000. The signatory i.e. Deputy Executive Engineer brought to the notice of the Assistant Labour Commissioner that, in response to your notice dated 11.12.2000, it is to be informed that the signatory has no right to reinstate Shri Girdharbhai Babubhai Patel the appellant herein nor he has power to terminate his services. It is also brought to the notice of the Assistant Labour Commissioner that, earlier this applicant had approached the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal by filing Appeal No. 104 of 2000 which was decided on 9.9.2000 and xerox copy of that order is annexed. It was requested that the same be taken into consideration and no action be taken on the request/application of the appellant workman. 7. It was requested that the same be taken into consideration and no action be taken on the request/application of the appellant workman. 7. What is important is that before the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, he claimed that he was, (I) Record Clerk (II) The period mentioned was from 22.9.79 to 8.5.81 (III) The certificate is found with interpolation (IV) The Tribunal, prima facie, recorded that this interpolation raises doubt about its authenticity and despite this clear contents of the order of the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, the appellant workman has an audacity to approach the Labour Court with twisted facts with necessary camouflage so as to invoke the jurisdiction of Labour Court. 9. At this juncture, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that, the appellant has approached this Court only because the other side i.e. the Panchayat has not paid salary though the appellants-workman is reinstated in service. The learned advocate submitted that if the Court is not inclined to grant the relief he may be permitted to withdraw the petition. The Court refuses to grant such permission after having noticed the aforesaid fraud committed by appellant-workman so as to examine the matter in detail. 10. The opponent-Deputy Executive Engineer, R & B, Sub Division Panchayat is directed to withheld the payment if any which is to be paid to the appellant workman till further orders by this Court." 15. At this stage, Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the said order dated 21.01.2014 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 554 of 2013 was carried before the Hon'ble Apex Court. He also submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court disposed of the Special Leave Petition in view of the fact that the Letters Patent Appeal was pending before Hon'ble Division Bench at the relevant time and the order challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court was interim order. On the said two grounds, the Special Leave Petition was not entertained. 16. From the record, it has emerged that the Letters Patent Appeal No. 554 of 2013 was heard finally by Hon'ble Division Bench and it came to be disposed of vide judgment dated 16.06.2014. In the said judgment dated 16.06.2014, the Hon'ble Division Bench observed, inter alia, that:-- "3. 16. From the record, it has emerged that the Letters Patent Appeal No. 554 of 2013 was heard finally by Hon'ble Division Bench and it came to be disposed of vide judgment dated 16.06.2014. In the said judgment dated 16.06.2014, the Hon'ble Division Bench observed, inter alia, that:-- "3. The Labour Court, by its judgment and award dated 15th September 2006 in Reference (LCJ) No. 264 of 2001, partly allowed the Reference and directed the District Panchayat to reinstate the appellant workman with continuity of service and 25% backwages. The respondent herein District Panchayat, Jamnagar filed a writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 26772 of 2006 challenging the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court. The appellant workman also filed a writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 28489 of 2007 challenging the award by submitting that he ought to have been awarded full backwages by the respondent District Panchayat. Both the writ petitions have been disposed of by the learned Single Judge by common judgment dated 07.03.2013 passed in Special Civil Application No. 26772 of 2006 with Special Civil Application No. 28489 of 2007. 4. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 26772 of 2006 filed by the District Panchayat, Jamnagar, has carved out a new case that the period from May 1984 to November 18, 2000 was to be treated as dies non. This was not permissible, as before the learned Single Judge, the award was challenged. It was open to him either to set aside the award or to confirm it but he cannot assign an independent ground or hold that a particular period would be treated as dies non unless there is a prayer to the effect was made by the District Panchayat in their writ petition. 5. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, cannot be maintained. The matter deserves to be remanded to the learned Single Judge for a fresh decision on merits. This LPA succeeds and allowed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 07.03.2013 in Special Civil Application No. 26772 of 2006 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge to decide the writ petition of the District Panchayat, Jamnagar afresh in accordance with law at the earliest, subject to His Lordships convenience. This LPA succeeds and allowed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 07.03.2013 in Special Civil Application No. 26772 of 2006 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge to decide the writ petition of the District Panchayat, Jamnagar afresh in accordance with law at the earliest, subject to His Lordships convenience. Parties shall bear their own cost." 17. Thus, in view of the order dated 16.06.2014, judgment dated 07.03.2013 in Special Civil Application No. 26772 of 2006 is set aside and the said petition is ordered to be heard afresh. 18. It is in the said petition that the applicant-workman has taken out present application. 19. In view of the judgment dated 16.06.2014, whereby the judgment dated 07.03.2013 came to be set aside, question arose about the petition which was originally filed by the workman i.e. Special Civil Application No. 28489 of 2007, whereby the applicant workman had prayed for balance amount of wages. 20. Today, at the time of hearing of this application, Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the workman again declared, stipulated and submits that the applicant has not pressed the Special Civil Application No. 28489 of 2007 and he also does not press the request for full back-wages and that therefore, the said petition has to be treated as disposed of, as withdrawn. 21. So far as present application is concerned, the Panchayat has filed an affidavit stating, inter alia, that:-- "2. The respondent No. 1 most respectfully submits that the applicant herein approached the Hon'ble Gujarat Service Tribunal by way of filing an Appeal No. 104 of 2000 contending that though he had worked between 1979-1984 as a Work Charge Mistry, he was wrongfully terminated from the employment. The respondent No. 1 submits that the Hon'ble Tribunal rejected the said Appeal on 31.08.2000 with certain observation. The respondent No. 1 submits that thereafter the applicant herein moved to the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the dispute was referred to the Hon'ble Labour Court at Jamnagar for appropriate decision and it was numbered as LCJ No. 264 of 2001. The respondent No. 1 submits that the Hon'ble Tribunal rejected the said Appeal on 31.08.2000 with certain observation. The respondent No. 1 submits that thereafter the applicant herein moved to the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the dispute was referred to the Hon'ble Labour Court at Jamnagar for appropriate decision and it was numbered as LCJ No. 264 of 2001. It is most respectfully stated that though the applicant had not produced any documentary evidence and materials to show this continuous work for a period of 5 years between 1979-1984 as Work Charge Mistry and there was unexplained delay of 16 years in filing the Reference, the Hon'ble Labour Court at Jamnagar awarded reinstatement with continuity of service and all other benefits as well as 25% back wages with effect from 27.11.2000 as well as cost of Rs. 5000/- through Award dated 15.09.2006. 3. The respondent No. 1 submits that the said Award was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat by way of filing Special Civil Application No. 26772 of 20069 by the respondent No. 1 herein. The respondent No. 1 submits that there was ad-interim order to pay the benefit under Section 17(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and ultimately Special Civil Application was finally heard and disposed off on 07.03.2013 with modification that the period between May, 1984 to 18.11.2000 be treated as dies non. 5. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the respondent No. 1 craves leave to state that the applicant is not entitled to reinstatement in employment after serious observation by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat about this conduct apart from delay in filing the Reference against the so called termination from the post of Work Charge Mistry in the year 1984. 6. The respondent No. 1 submits that even there is a mischief played by the applicant with regard to his birth date. It is submitted that a birth certificate dated 11.03.2003 issued by Talati-cum-Mantri of Village: Hadmadia shows that the applicant was born on 21.01.1958. It is submitted that a duplicate School Leaving Certificate dated 31.05.1977/08.04.2013 issued by Sagramji High School, Gondal, the applicant was born on 01.06.1962. It is submitted that the applicant has produced him Affidavit dated 04.04.2013 stating on oath that his correct birth date is 21.01.1958. 7. It is submitted that a duplicate School Leaving Certificate dated 31.05.1977/08.04.2013 issued by Sagramji High School, Gondal, the applicant was born on 01.06.1962. It is submitted that the applicant has produced him Affidavit dated 04.04.2013 stating on oath that his correct birth date is 21.01.1958. 7. The respondent No. 1 submits that though the applicant herein had not worked as Work Charge Mistry between 1974 to 1984 as alleged by him, he was ordered to be reinstated by the Hon'ble Labour Court at Jamnagar. It is submitted that pursuant to final orders passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 26772 of 2006 on 07.03.2013, it was thought fit to issue impugned order dated 15-20.04.2013 by the Executive Engineer, Jamnagar District Panchayat directing to reinstate the applicant herein as Wrok Charge Mistry in Sub Division Office. It is submitted that however, as the applicant herein had never worked as Work Charge Mistry, there was confusion about compliance of the said order and meanwhile the Hon'ble Division Bench passed the impugned order dated 21.01.2014 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 554 of 2013 taking serous observation about the conduct of the applicant. The respondent No. 1 submits that later on the Hon'ble Division Bench finally disposed the said Letter Patent Appeal and directed to hear the Special Civil Application No. 26772 of 2013 afresh and accordingly said Special Civil Application is pending for final hearing and disposal. In view of these facts and more particularly when the applicant is not at employed as Work Charge Mistry and had never served is that the capacity pursuant to the order passed by the Executive Engineer, Roads and Building Division, Jamnagar District Panchayat there is no question of denial of wages as claimed by the applicant or entitlement of wages." 22. I have considered above mentioned details and factual background as well as the orders passed by the Court from time to time. I have also considered the details mentioned by the Panchayat in its affidavit dated 02.12.2014. I have also considered the submissions in the affidavit dated 02.12.2014, Whereby the Panchayat has mentioned the details related to the conduct of the applicant-workman with regard to his birth date. 23. I have also considered the details mentioned by the Panchayat in its affidavit dated 02.12.2014. I have also considered the submissions in the affidavit dated 02.12.2014, Whereby the Panchayat has mentioned the details related to the conduct of the applicant-workman with regard to his birth date. 23. The order on which the applicant has placed reliance and the order on the strength of which the applicant has put forward his request in this application issued on 15.04.2013 by Executive Engineer, Jamnagar. The said order is passed after the Court passed the judgment dated 07.03.2013 in Special Civil Application No. 26772 of 2006. Now, vide judgment dated 16.06.2014 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 554 of 2013 which was filed by the applicant-workman himself, the said judgment dated 07.03.2013 is set aside. The said judgment and direction now do not survive. 24. In that view of the matter, the order dated 15.04.2013, which came to be passed in light of and in compliance or order dated 07.03.2013, any direction to the Panchayat to comply the said order and/or to act in pursuance of the said order dated 15.04.2013, does not deserve to be passed at this stage when the writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 26772 of 2006 is directed to be and is required to be heard afresh. Upon fresh hearing of the said petition, appropriate order and direction will be passed. However, in view of the facts which are narrated herein above, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief as prayed for in this application and this Court is of the view that before hearing the petition afresh in view of judgment dated 16.06.2013 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 554 of 2013, any order with regard to the panchayats order dated 15.04.2013 is not required to be passed and appropriate order, directions will be passed at the time of final decision in writ petition i.e. Special Civil Application No. 26772 of 2006. For the said purpose, the office is directed to list the said Special Civil Application No. 26772 of 2006 in the cause list for final hearing on 03.02.2016. 25. For the said purpose, the office is directed to list the said Special Civil Application No. 26772 of 2006 in the cause list for final hearing on 03.02.2016. 25. In this context, it is also relevant to note that in light of the reasons and circumstances mentioned in the affidavit dated 02.12.2014 and in view of the fact that the judgment dated 07.03.2013 is set aside by Hon'ble Division Bench and also in view of the fact that the post does not exist, the opponent-panchayat has not executed and implemented the order dated 15.04.2013 and instead it is complying the direction to pay last drawn wages in accordance with Section 17B of the Industrial Dispute Act. Even, Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the applicant confirmed that the Panchayat has continued to pay last drawn wages in accordance with Section 17B of the Act and presently also the workman is paid the said amount. This is another reason in view of which the Court is of the view that at this stage any order with regard to relief prayed for in this application is not required to be passed and appropriate direction by way of composite order will be passed upon final hearing of Special Civil Application No. 26772 of 2006. With the aforesaid clarification, present application is disposed of. Rule is discharged.