JUDGMENT : BIREN VAISHNAV, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the workman – original respondent before the learned Single Judge. She has filed this appeal on being aggrieved by the learned Single Judge’s final direction modifying the award of the Labour Court, denying her back-wages awarded by the Court at the rate of 30% and awarding Rs.7000/- as lumpsum compensation towards back-wages. Further modification denying the appellant continuity of service also is the cause for the present appeal. 2. Facts in brief are as under: 2.1 The State of Gujarat had approached the learned Single Judge challenging the award dated 21.01.2011 passed by the Labour Court, Palanpur in Reference (LCP) No. 61 of 2003 by which the Labour Court while allowing the reference had directed the respondent herein to reinstate the appellant in service on her original post with 30% back-wages. The appellant workman had raised an industrial dispute on her services being orally terminated with effect from 30.04.2003. It was her case before the Labour Court that she had worked continuously for 7 years drawing a salary of Rs.1350/- per month. That she had worked for 240 days and her services were terminated in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2.2 The claim was opposed by the employer – respondent herein. Amongst other grounds, it was the case of the employer that she was working purely as an adhoc part-time casual worker and her wages were paid from the expenditure account of the Senior Medical Officer. After considering the evidence on record, the Labour Court by the award challenged by the employer before the learned Single Judge directed reinstatement with 30% back-wages. 2.3 Before the learned Single Judge, it was the contention of the employer - State Government - the respondent herein that the appellant was not appointed through a regular procedure and was only engaged as a casual worker on a part-time basis. After appreciation of the submissions of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the learned Single Judge opined that he would not take a view different from the view taken by the Labour Court with regard to violation of the statutory provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. After appreciation of the submissions of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the learned Single Judge opined that he would not take a view different from the view taken by the Labour Court with regard to violation of the statutory provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned Single Judge observed that the conclusion and the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court that the services of the appellant herein were terminated in violation of the statutory provisions were not erroneous. In other words, the learned Single Judge upheld the award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the appellant herein. 2.4 As far as the question of continuity of service is concerned, the learned Single Judge observed that since the appellant was engaged without following due procedure of inviting of names from the employment exchange, and that 11 years have passed since the service of the appellant was terminated, the relief of continuity of service was denied. As far as back-wages is concerned, the learned Single Judge observed that as the appellant was engaged on a part-time basis and having found that in her cross-examination the appellant had admitted that she had undertaken some miscellaneous work as a domestic employee, the finding of the Labour Court directing 30% back-wages was not justified. 2.5 The learned Single Judge in paras 12 & 13 observed as under: “12. It is also clarified that the learned Labour Court has not granted continuity of service and even otherwise this Court does not find any cause or justification for such relief i.e. continuity of service. Therefore respondent will not be entitled for continuity of service. 13. So far as direction awarding back-wages @ 30% is concerned, the said direction is set aside by directing the petitioner to pay Rs.7,000/- as lump sum compensation to the respondent. With the aforesaid clarification the award dated 21.1.2011 passed by the learned Labour Court, Palanpur in Reference (LCP) No. 61 of 2003 is partly set aside and partly modified and petition is party allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Orders accordingly.” 3. With the aforesaid clarification the award dated 21.1.2011 passed by the learned Labour Court, Palanpur in Reference (LCP) No. 61 of 2003 is partly set aside and partly modified and petition is party allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Orders accordingly.” 3. Shri Mahendra U. Vora, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that once the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had held categorically that the award of reinstatement was sustainable when there was breach of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the learned Single Judge clearly fell in error in denying the benefit of continuity of service and reducing the amount from 30% of back-wages to a lumpsum amount of Rs.7,000/- as compensation. 4. Having heard learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant and having considered the order of the learned Single Judge, it is evident from paragraphs 12 & 13 which are reproduced hereinabove on considering the award of the Labour Court that the Labour Court in the operative portion of the award has not expressly spoken about granting the benefit of continuity of service. 4.1 As far as denial of back-wages to the extent of 30% and reducing the same to Rs.7000/- as compensation no reasons have been assigned by the learned Single Judge as to on what account has the learned Single Judge reduced the amount of back-wages from 30% to a mere amount of Rs.7000/- as compensation. No yardstick or basis appears to have been expressed in the order. Looking to the above facts, we find that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent of denying back-wages and continuity of service is required to be quashed and set aside and the matter is required to be remanded to the learned Single Judge for reconsideration of the question of back-wages afresh. 4.2 Insofar as the observations made by the learned Single Judge in para 12 with respect to continuity of service is concerned, it is required to be noted that as such the Labour Court did not grant continuity of service and therefore the same was not subject matter before the learned Single Judge and therefore the observations made by the learned Single Judge in para 12 of the impugned order that “even otherwise this Court does not find any cause or justification for such relief i.e. continuity of service and therefore the respondent will not be entitled for continuity of service” are absolutely unwarranted and not required, more particularly, as the question with respect to continuity was not the subject matter before the learned Single Judge. Under the circumstances, the observations made by the learned Single Judge in para 12 with respect to continuity deserves to be quashed and set aside and are accordingly quashed and set aside. 5. Accordingly, present Letters Patent Appeal is allowed insofar as it denies the continuity of service and grants lumpsum compensation in substitution of 30% back-wages. The order/observation of the learned Single Judge in paras 12 & 13 are set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge to consider the question of back-wages afresh. In view of the disposal of the Letters Patent Appeal, Civil Application No. 4102 of 2017 stands disposed of.