JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Nanavati, learned advocate and Mr. Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner company and Mr. Pathak, learned advocate for the respondent. 2. In this petition, when the petitioner company has challenged award dated 17.5.2006 passed by the learned Labour Court in reference No. 261 of 1992 whereby the learned Labour Court has directed the company to reinstate the claimant on his original post and to pay 50% of the wages for the period from 21.3.1995 to 11.8.2000. 3. So far as the factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record and from rival submissions that the respondent herein, i.e. original claimant raised industrial dispute with allegation that the company terminated his service without following procedure prescribed by law and without any fault on his part. Appropriate Government referred the dispute for adjudication to the learned Labour Court at Bharuch. The dispute was registered as Reference (LCB) No. 261 of 1992. In his statement of claim, the claimant alleged that he was working with the opponent company as Fitter since 6.4.1994 and that due to his ill-health, he could not report for duty for the period from 14.2.1995 to 20.3.1995 (i.e. for almost one month and one week) and when he reported for duty on 21.3.1995, he was not allowed to resume his duties and he was orally instructed that his service is not required. He also alleged that on 30.3.1995 he addressed a letter to the company and asked the company to reinstate him, however, the company did not accept his request. Therefore, he raised dispute before the Labour Commissioner on 6.4.1995. He alleged that his service came to be terminated in violation of principles of natural justice and statutory provisions and that, therefore, he should be reinstated with full backwages. 4. The company opposed the reference. In its reply, the company claimed that it never terminated service of the claimant and it was the claimant who stopped reporting for duty without any intimation and he voluntarily stopped reporting for duty. In the written statement the company also clarified and stated that if the claimant is ready and willing to report for duty and resume his duties, then the company has no objection and the company would re-engage him on the same position with same salary. In the written statement the company also clarified and stated that if the claimant is ready and willing to report for duty and resume his duties, then the company has no objection and the company would re-engage him on the same position with same salary. With such submission, the company opposed the reference and requested the learned Labour Court to reject the reference. 5. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court received evidence from both sides and upon conclusion of the proceedings of the learned Labour Court passed impugned award with above mentioned directions. 6. Mr. Nanavati, learned advocate and Mr. Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner company contended that it was the claimant who had stopped reporting for duty and that, therefore, there is no justification in the impugned directions and the award. Learned advocates for the petitioner company submitted that the claimant is engaged in and interested his personal/private business of drilling bore-well and for that purpose, the claimant owns drilling rig and that, therefore, he was not and he is not interested in continuing in the employment. The company contended that having lost interest in the service, the claimant had voluntarily stopped reporting for duty and subsequently as an afterthought and with a view to extracting amount from the company, the claimant raised dispute. Learned advocates for the petitioner company submitted that though in the written statement, the company had clarified that the respondent may resume duty if he desires to work with the company. According to the company, the claimant, however, did not report for duty. Learned advocates for the petitioner company further submitted that since the workman, despite specific statement in the written statement, did not report for duty, the company filed separate purshis on 11.8.2005 with a request to learned Labour Court to direct the claimant to report for duty and that even thereafter the claimant did not report for duty. Learned advocates for the petitioner company submitted that having regard to such separate purshis dated 11.8.2005 and having regard to the fact that despite the intimation by the company, it was the claimant who was not reporting for duty and therefore, the learned Labour Court denied the backwages to the claimant for the period after 11.8.2005. Learned advocates for the petitioner company submitted that having regard to such separate purshis dated 11.8.2005 and having regard to the fact that despite the intimation by the company, it was the claimant who was not reporting for duty and therefore, the learned Labour Court denied the backwages to the claimant for the period after 11.8.2005. In this background, learned advocates for the petitioner company submitted that the direction to reinstate the claimant and the direction to pay 50% wages for the period from March 1996 to 11.8.2005, are unjustified. 7. Mr. Pathak, learned advocate for the respondent workman reiterated the allegations made by the claimant in his statement of claim. He submitted that the claimant was unwell and therefore, he could not report for duty for the period of about one month and one week, i.e. 14.2.1995 to 20.3.1995 and after his health improved, the claimant reported for duty on 21.3.1995 with medical certificate, however, he was not allowed to resume the duty and the claimant's service was terminated orally without following procedure prescribed by law and in violation of principles of law. He submitted that there is no error in the award passed by the learned Labour Court. Mr. Pathak, learned advocate for the respondent submitted that the petition may be dismissed. 8. I have considered rival submissions by learned advocates for the parties and I have also considered the material on record and the impugned award. 9. So far as the alleged termination of service of the claimant is concerned, there is word against word. Both sides placed oral evidence before the learned Labour Court. Undisputedly, there is no order passed by the company terminating service of the claimant. The company claimed that actually, the company had never terminated the service of the claimant and it was the claimant who voluntarily and for undisclosed reasons and without any intimation to the company, stopped reporting for duty. 10. In this background, only on the ground that when the claimant stopped reporting for duty, the company did not serve any intimation to the claimant and did not conduct any enquiry against the claimant for remaining absent and did not ask the claimant to resume duties, the learned Labour Court convinced itself to accept the allegation of the workman that the company had orally terminated his service. 10.1 The learned Labour Court, proceeded on the premise that in view of the fact that the company stated in its written statement that the workman may resume duty and subsequently vide purshis dated 11.8.2000 the company also declared that the workman may resume his duty, goes to show that he company is ready to reinstate the workman and therefore, there cannot be any problem or difficulty or objection in passing the direction to the company to reinstate the workman. On that solitary ground, the learned Labour Court directed the company to reinstate the claimant. 11. So far as the backwages are concerned, the learned Labour Court has denied the backwages to the workman from the date when the company filed purshis i.e. from 11.8.2000. 11.1 However, for the period from the date on which the claimant had allegedly stopped reporting for duty, i.e. from 21.3.1995 to 11.8.2000, the learned Labour Court directed the company to pay 50% backwages. 11.2 On that count, though the learned Labour Court took into consideration the documents placed on record by the petitioner company which demonstrated that the claimant was, in the interregnum and even before the alleged date of termination, engaged in private/personal business of drilling bore-well, the learned Labour Court granted 50% backwages. 12. On this count, it has emerged from the record that the company placed on record certificate which established that the claimant owned drilling rig. The company also placed on record various documents which demonstrated that the claimant was approved contractor (for drilling bore-well) with several government agencies and that he was earning substantial income from the business of drilling bore-well for various parties/customers. 13. The fact that the claimant was gainfully engaged in the said business, is not in dispute. 14. Besides this, in the order dated 20.3.2008, even this Court has even taken note of the fact that the applicant worked as Deputy Sarpanch of Village: Mulad, Taluka: Jaghadiya. 15. The learned Labour Court, even after accepting the fact that the claimant was engaged in private/personal business of drilling bore-well and he earned substantial income from the said business, awarded 50% backwages, the claimant for the period from 21.3.1995 to 11.8.2000. 16. At this stage, it is appropriate to take note of the relevant fact. 15. The learned Labour Court, even after accepting the fact that the claimant was engaged in private/personal business of drilling bore-well and he earned substantial income from the said business, awarded 50% backwages, the claimant for the period from 21.3.1995 to 11.8.2000. 16. At this stage, it is appropriate to take note of the relevant fact. After the petition came to be admitted, the claimant demanded payment of last drawn salary in accordance with section 17B of the Act. 16.1 The company opposed the said demand on the ground that the claimant was engaged in business activity of drilling bore-well. 16.2 The evidence which was placed on record before the learned Labour Court and which was acknowledged and accepted by the learned Labour Court, was relied on by the company while opposing the claimant's demand for last drawn wages in accordance with section 17B of the Act. 16.3 However, at the relevant time, the Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.K. Rathod, as His Lordship then was) passed order dated 27.3.2008 and on the ground that engagement of the claimant in business activity amounts to self-employment and that, therefore, the defence of the company that the claimant is gainfully employed, cannot be entertained. On the said ground, the Court rejected the objection of the company against the demand for last drawn wages under section 17B and this Court, vide order dated 27.3.2008, rejected the company to pay the last drawn wages to the claimant. 16.4 It is given out by learned advocates that the company has continued to pay last drawn wages to the claimant in accordance with section 17B of the Act, until now. Learned advocate for the respondent workman has not disputed the said statement and he also acknowledged the fact that the company has paid last drawn wages to the claimant under section 17B of the Act. Thus, despite the fact that he has engaged in business activity, the claimant has received payment of last drawn wages for almost 9 years (during pendency of the petition). 17. Having regard to the fact that the company itself continuously maintained the stand that it had never terminated service of the claimant, this Court finds no reason or justification to interfere with the order directing the company to reinstate the claimant. 17. Having regard to the fact that the company itself continuously maintained the stand that it had never terminated service of the claimant, this Court finds no reason or justification to interfere with the order directing the company to reinstate the claimant. 17.1 When the stand and defence of the company was that it had not terminated the service of the claimant and when the company had, at least, on two occasions and thereafter during the deposition also, informed the learned Labour Court that the claimant may resume duty if he does so, then the company will re-engage on the same post and with the same salary. 17.2 Therefore, now, at this stage, the company cannot take a different stand and cannot oppose the learned Labour Court's order directing the company to reinstate the claimant. 17.3 Having regard to the stand and defence taken by the company before the learned Labour Court, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the direction to reinstate the claimant. 17.4 Therefore, the company's objection and challenge against the learned Labour Court's order and direction to reinstate the claimant is rejected. 18. Now, so far as the direction to pay 50% backwages for the aforesaid period is concerned, it is relevant to note that the learned Labour Court itself has denied 50% backwages to the claimant for the period after 11.8.2000. By very same logic of learned Labour Court any backwages for the period after the company files written statement ought not have been granted. 18.1 Besides this, actually, there is another aspect to this matter so far as the direction to pay 50% backwages for the aforesaid period is concerned. 18.2 Undisputedly, the claimant was not reporting for duty from 14.2.1995. During the period from 14.2.1995 to 20.3.1995, i.e. for almost 5 to 6 weeks, the claimant did not inform anything about his absence to the company. He never sought leave and he did not offer any explanation about his absence. For almost 5 to 6 weeks the claimant did not care to inform the company the reason for not reporting for duty and when he would report for duty. For almost 6 weeks he did not even care to seek leave from the company and he reported for duty on 21.3.1995 with some medical certificate. He alleged that he was not allowed to resume duty. For almost 6 weeks he did not even care to seek leave from the company and he reported for duty on 21.3.1995 with some medical certificate. He alleged that he was not allowed to resume duty. Any corroborating evidence to support the allegation he was not allowed to report for and resume duty was not placed evidence on record before the learned Labour Court. On the other hand, the company placed on record sufficient documents on record to establish that even before the date when the claimant stopped reporting for duty, the claimant owned a drilling rig and he was engaged in the business of drilling bore-well. 18.3 The said fact is coupled with the fact that the claimant had, without seeking leave and without any intimation, unauthorizedly stopped reporting for duty and remained absent for almost 6 weeks. That was in the backdrop of the fact that the claimant was engaged in running business activity. 18.4 In this view of the matter, the order directing the company to pay backwages cannot be sustained. 19. In the result and on overall consideration of the matter, following order is passed: "(a) In light of the foregoing discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the award impugned in present petition is partly set aside and modified. (b) The order directing the company to reinstate the claimant is not disturbed and the said direction is confirmed. (c) However, the order directing the company to pay 50% backwages for the period from 21.3.1995 to 11.8.2000 is set aside." With the aforesaid directions and observations, the petition is disposed of. The petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.