JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard, Mr. Dipak Dave learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Ashish H. Shah learned advocate for the respondent No. 1. 2. In present petition, the petitioner has challenged award dated 22.08.2003 passed by the Labour Court at Ahmedabad in reference (LCA) No. 137 of 1991 whereby learned Labour Court partly allowed the reference and directed the opponent i.e. present petitioner to reinstate the claimant on his original post with 75 % back-wages. 3. So far as factual background is concerned. It has emerged from the record and submissions by learned advocate for the contesting parties that the claimant raised industrial dispute with the allegation that the opponent employer illegally terminated his service on 01.07.1990 and that he should be reinstated in service with all benefits. Appropriate government referred the dispute for adjudication to the learned Labour Court. Learned Labour Court registered the dispute as reference (LCA) No. 137 of 1991. 4. In his statement of the claim claimants alleged that he was working with opponent employer as an Electrician, and his salary was Rs. 670/-. He also alleged that before the employer terminated his service, he worked with the opponent employer for about two years. He further alleged that the employer did not provide attendance card or identity card or other documents and that he was paid salary at rates less than minimum wages and that though he was made to work for extra hours any payment for over time work was not made and weekly off also was not granted. He further alleged that on 30.06.1990 he was not present because the day was his weekly off. However, he was called from his residence and he was asked to attend certain work. He further alleged that when he demanded the payment of over time work - since he was called to work on his weekly off his claim was denied and when on the next date i.e. 01.07.1990, he reported for duty his service came to be illegally terminated by oral instructions and without following any procedure prescribed by law. With such allegations, the claimant demanded that reference may be allowed and opponent may be directed to reinstate him with all consequential benefits. 5. The opponent employer opposed the reference and the demand. With such allegations, the claimant demanded that reference may be allowed and opponent may be directed to reinstate him with all consequential benefits. 5. The opponent employer opposed the reference and the demand. The employer filed its written statement and contended that the claimant joined service as Electrician on 01.08.1989 and that it was the claimant who left the work place after recess on 29.06.1990 and thereafter, he did not report for duty on 29.06.1990. The employer also contended that the claimant did not report for duty even on 30.06.1990 and that since he has committed mistake in completing the wiring work on previous days i.e. 28.06.1990 and 29.06.1990, which caused short circuit and therefore, he was called for repairing work. However, he did not come for the work and on 01.07.1990 also he did not report for duty. The employer further contended that since the claimant did not report for duty even on 02.07.1990 and when he reported for duty on 03.07.1990, he was asked to be more attentive towards his duty as electrician. He was also informed about the short circuit which occurred on account of faulty wiring. At that stage, the claimant left the workplace and did not report for duty. The opponent employer also contended that since the claimant was not reporting for duty notices dated 28.08.1990 and 08.09.1990 were forward by registered post, however, the claimant did not resume his duty and he instead raised industrial dispute with incorrect and concocted allegations. With such submission the opponent employer opposed reference and submitted that claimant is not entitled for any relief and therefore reference may be dismissed. 6. When the parties completed their pleadings, learned Labour Court received and recorded evidence from both sides. When the parties concluded their submissions, learned Labour Court considered the material available on record and also considered rival submissions and passed award which is impugned in present petition. 7. Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Labour Court failed to appreciate that it was the claimant who did not resume duties and despite intimation and notices asking the claimant to report for duty, the claimant never reported for duty. Mr. 7. Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Labour Court failed to appreciate that it was the claimant who did not resume duties and despite intimation and notices asking the claimant to report for duty, the claimant never reported for duty. Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that learned Labour Court also failed to appreciate that the claimant had worked only for about ten to eleven months and that therefore, direction passed by the learned Labour Court is unjustified. Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even after the learned Labour Court passed above order and during the pendency of this petition, the petitioner had asked the respondent to resume the duty but he has not resumed his duties. Mr. Dave learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that according to the information available with the petitioner, the respondent is gainfully employed in other establishment and that therefore, he is not interested in resuming his duty with the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that actually the dispute was settled before the learned Labour Court and petitioner had paid Rs. 10,000/- to the union which was paid to the claimant, however, even after, accepting said Rs. 10,000/- the claimant refused to sign receipt acknowledging the payment and he also refused to sign the settlement. According to the petitioner, the claimant is interested only in extracting some amount from the petitioner and that though he is gainfully employed he has continued the litigation and has not reported for duties despite intimation by the petitioner. 8. Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the claimant vehemently refused the submission and allegation by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Shah, learned advocate for the respondent denied the allegation that claimant is gainfully employed or that Rs. 10,000/- was paid to the claimant at any time by way of/for the purpose of settlement of the dispute. 9. At this stage, Mr. Dave learned advocate for the petitioner relied on the rejoinder affidavit dated 05.09.2007 and submitted that the petitioner has mentioned the details of the establishment wherein the claimant is gainfully employed. He referred the paragraph No. 3.7 of the rejoinder affidavit wherein the petitioner has averred and stated that: "In fact, the respondent was invited to resume duty by several letters but the respondent did not resume duty. He referred the paragraph No. 3.7 of the rejoinder affidavit wherein the petitioner has averred and stated that: "In fact, the respondent was invited to resume duty by several letters but the respondent did not resume duty. The respondent is in fact, serving elsewhere and at present also, he is in service with one Kirtan Marketing, situated at Kothi Rang, Raipur, Ahmedabad." 10. Subsequently, the petitioner filed affidavit dated 30.01.2014 stating that there was inadvertent typing mistake while mentioning the name of establishment where the claimant is gainfully employed. On that account the petitioner, in his affidavit dated 30.01.2014 further stated that: "Respondent is gainfully employed with Kiran Marketing situated at Kothirang, Raipur. I stated that in the name of employer Kiran Marketing, there is typographical error since respondent is employed with Kirtan Marketing. I state that respondent is employed with Natraj Gharghanti/Anand Corporation/Kirtan Marketing. All the three firms are operating under one head. I have with great difficulties found out details of provident fund with respect to the respondent. The name of respondent is maintained with Anand Corporation and provident fund is also deducted from the salary of the respondent. A copy of employee's detail for Anand Corporation obtained from the website of EPF Organization is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-I. A copy of document showing that Anand Corporation and Kirtan Marketing is one and same is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-II. To support said submission, petitioner has also placed on record, a statement derived from the website of the establishment named Anand Corporation. 11. In view of above mentioned background and more particularly, in light of the petitioner's claimed and assertion that the respondent is gainfully employed and also in light of the orders dated 17.12.2007, 28.12.2007 and 31.01.2008, the petitioner and respondent entered into discussion for overall settlement of the dispute. 12. For the said purpose and so as to enable parties to arrive at an amicable resolution of the dispute, the proceeding of present petition were adjourned from time to time. 13. Today, when the petition is taken up for the final hearing, learned advocate Mr. Shah for the respondent and Mr. 12. For the said purpose and so as to enable parties to arrive at an amicable resolution of the dispute, the proceeding of present petition were adjourned from time to time. 13. Today, when the petition is taken up for the final hearing, learned advocate Mr. Shah for the respondent and Mr. Dave learned advocate for the petitioner have jointly submitted that:- (a) petitioner and respondents have arrived at an amicable settlement outside the Court and that the settlement is arrived at as full and final settlement between the parties in respect of all claims, demands, disputes, rights etc. of the workman against the petitioner. (b) the petitioner has agreed to pay Rs. 60,000/- as lump-sum compensation to the respondent workman by way of full and final settlement of all claims, disputes, demands and rights of the respondent workman including those flowing from the order impugned in present petition. (c) it is also agreed by and between the parties that upon payment of Rs. 60,000/- all demands, disputes, claims and rights of the claimants shall stand fully and finally satisfied, and any claim, disputes, demands or rights including flowing from the settlement shall not survive and if any survives, they shall be deemed to have been settled and waived. (d) the parties have also agreed that if any proceedings including and recovery application is filed against the petitioner then the same shall be withdrawn, shall be deemed to have been withdrawn and such proceedings will not survive and would be deemed to have been settled in terms of the agreement between the parties. (e) the petitioner has agreed to pay sum of Rs. 60,000/- within period of four weeks from today and respondent has agreed to accept the said amount in full and final settlement of all claims and disputes and that on payment of said amount all litigation between the parties in connection with and/or arising from/based on impugned order and/or arising from alleged termination of service of the claimant shall stand settled/closed. 14. Learned advocate for the respondent and petitioner also jointly submitted that in view of the full and final settlement between the parties, the petition may be disposed off. 15. In view of such submission and statement by the learned advocates for the petitioner and respondents, the petition is disposed off in terms of settlement between the parties. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. 15. In view of such submission and statement by the learned advocates for the petitioner and respondents, the petition is disposed off in terms of settlement between the parties. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. Disposed off.