ORDER : NIRZAR S. DESAI, J. 1. When the matter is called out, learned advocate Mr.Murli Devnani for the appellant tendered a draft amendment. The Draft Amendment is allowed. Learned advocate for the appellant is directed to carry out the draft amendment forthwith. 2. By way of the present Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant – original petitioner of Special Civil Application No.19747 of 2019 has challenged the order dated 15.11.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge disposed of the petition preferred by the present appellant by modifying the award of the Labour Court No.2, Rajkot passed in Reference (LCR) No.28 of 2016 dated 02.08.2019 to the effect that the Respondent No.1 shall be entitled to be reinstated in service to his original post with continuity of services, with all consequential benefits flowing from the continuity of services, with 30% back-wages from the date of termination till the Respondent no.1 is reinstated in service. The Labour Court No.2, Rajkot vide award dated 02.08.2019 had passed an order directing the reinstatement of the Respondent No.1 with 50% backwages and the amount of back-wages was modified to the extent of reducing it to 30% from 50% by order impugned in this appeal. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Murli Devnani for the appellant and learned advocate Ms.Sandhya Nathani for the Respondent No.1. 4. Brief facts giving rise to filing of the present appeal are stated as under: 4.1 Respondent No.1 was appointed by Atkot Gram Panchayat by passing a Resolution and the Respondent No.1 started functioning his duty in Octroi Branch as Octroi Clerk with effect from 19.05.1988. Even after the system of collection of octroi was abolished in the year 2001, the present Respondent No.1 was continued by the appellant as Clerk and he continued to perform his duty under the present appellant as Clerk till his services were terminated by present appellant by passing the Resolution dated 12.02.2016. 4.2 Being aggrieved by the Resolution dated 12.02.2016 directing the services of Respondent No.1, the Respondent No.1 preferred Reference (LCR) No.28 of 2016 and prayed for his reinstatement, with continuity of service and full back-wages. 4.3 The Labour Court No.2, Rajkot vide order dated 02.08.2019 directed the present appellant to be reinstated in services of Respondent No.1 with effect from 12.02.2016 with continuity of service and 50% back wages. 4.3 The Labour Court No.2, Rajkot vide order dated 02.08.2019 directed the present appellant to be reinstated in services of Respondent No.1 with effect from 12.02.2016 with continuity of service and 50% back wages. 4.4 While passing the order of reinstatement with 50% back-wages, the Labour Court held that there is a clearcut breach of Sections 25(F) and 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘ID Act’, for short). 4.5 The aforesaid order dated 02.08.2019 passed by the Labour Court No.2, Rajkot was challenged by the present appellant before this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.19747 of 2019 and the learned Single Judge disposed of the said petition by modifying the order passed by the Labour Court No.2, Rajkot and reduced the amount of back-wages to be paid to Respondent No.1 from 50% to 30% vide order dated 15.11.2019. 4.6 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 5. Learned advocate Mr.Murli Devnani for the appellant tendered draft amendment and placed on record a copy of the cross-examination of the Respondent No.1 and submitted that the Respondent No.1 was gainfully employed as he was running the shop in the name of his wife and was having agency of Ultratech Cement in the name and style of ‘Shree Bhumika Traders’. On the basis of cross-examination of Respondent No.1, learned advocate Mr.Devnani submitted that in view of the fact that Respondent No.1 was gainfully employed, the learned Single Judge has committed an error by reducing the back-wages from 50% to 30% to be paid to Respondent No.1 as according to Mr.Devnani the Respondent No.1 is not entitled to any back-wages as he was gainfully employed. 5.1 Learned advocate Mr.Devnani further submitted that any order of back-wages in favour of Respondent No.1 would only increase the financial burden of the Gram Panchayat and therefore also the learned Single Judge has committed an error by awarding 30% back-wages in favour of Respondent No.1. 5.2 No ground in respect of reinstatement was raised by learned advocate Mr.Devnani and no other and further arguments were made or any judgments were relied upon by learned advocate Mr.Devnani. 6. 5.2 No ground in respect of reinstatement was raised by learned advocate Mr.Devnani and no other and further arguments were made or any judgments were relied upon by learned advocate Mr.Devnani. 6. Per contra, learned advocate Ms.Sandhya Nathani for the Respondent No.1 submitted that the Labour Court passed the order of reinstatement with 50% back-wages after taking into consideration documentary and oral evidence on record and while passing the aforesaid order, the Labour Court was well aware about the fact that wife of Respondent No.1 was having agency of Ultratech Cement and was running the shop in the name and style of ‘Shree Bhumika Traders’. The Labour Court was pleased to pass an order of reinstatement of Respondent No.1 with continuity of service, with 50% back-wages after considering the totality of the facts, since all the grounds, which are sought to be canvassed by the learned advocate for the appellant, were canvassed before the learned Single Judge as well. Taking note of the aforesaid fact that the petitioner’s wife was running a shop in the name of ‘Shree Bhumika Traders’ and also considering the financial aspects of burdening the Gram Panchayat financially, on account of back-wages, the learned Single Judge has rightly modified the order of Labour Court, Rajkot by reducing the amount of back-wages to be paid to the Respondent No.1 from 50% to 30% and on the strength of aforesaid submission, learned advocate Ms.Nathani prayed for dismissal of present appeal. 7. We have heard learned advocates for the respective parties. We have also perused the record of Special Civil Application No.19747 of 2019 and the evidence forming part of the paper-book. The main contention of learned advocate Mr.Devnani in respect of back-wages awarded in favour of Respondent No.1 to the extent of 30% is that the wife of Respondent No.1 was having shop in the name of ‘Shree Bhumika Traders’ and hence Respondent No.1 was gainfully employed and, therefore, both the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge have committed an error by awarding back-wages in favour of Respondent No.1 while issuing direction to reinstate the Respondent No.1. 7.1 Since the main limb of argument of Mr.Devnani was two- fold i.e. (i) that the Respondent No.1 was gainfully employed as his wife is having shop in his name i.e. ‘Shree Bhumika Traders’ and (ii) that awarding backwages in favour of Respondent No.1 would increase the financial burden of Gram Panchayat, considering the fact that no argument was advanced in respect of order of reinstatement of Respondent No.1, we have confined ourselves to examine the order of the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge, only to the extent of awarding back-wages in favour of Respondent No.1. 7.2 The record indicates that the fact about wife of the petitioner having a shop in the name of ‘Shree Bhumika Traders’ was already there before the Labour Court. The said issue was also raised before the learned Single Judge as well. While recording the submission of petitioner (present appellant), the learned Single Judge has observed thus, in paras:4 and 5:- “4. It is alleged that the respondent no.1 is carrying out the business of selling of Ultratech Cement at a large scale from a premise which is in the name of his wife Shobhna Shasikant Samiya in the name and style of ‘Shree Bhumika Traders’. The details of registration, etc. has been given to urge that, this 50% of back-wages is a huge burden.” 5. Mr.H.S. Munshaw appearing for the petitioner Gram Panchayat has made an extensive submission along the line of the memo of the petition. He, however, fairly submitted that the material with regard to the business of wife of the present respondent no.1 and the proof in support thereof had not been adduced before the Labour Court. He also admitted fairly that no inquiry has been conducted against the respondent no.1, at the time of terminating his services. He, however emphasized that there is no question of breach of Sections 25G and 25H of the I.D. Act, as Mr. Rajeshbhai Chovatiya has not been put on a job in place of the respondent no.1.” 7.3 Thereafter, after considering the argument advanced by both the sides, the learned Single Judge, in para:8 of the order, observed thus:- “8. He, however emphasized that there is no question of breach of Sections 25G and 25H of the I.D. Act, as Mr. Rajeshbhai Chovatiya has not been put on a job in place of the respondent no.1.” 7.3 Thereafter, after considering the argument advanced by both the sides, the learned Single Judge, in para:8 of the order, observed thus:- “8. When no material with regard to any misconduct on the part of the respondent as the respondent having indulged into any activities contrary to the Service or Code or Rules and Regulations, has been placed on record and therefore, the petitioner will not be permitted to rely on the document of the wife pursuing the business in the name and style of ‘Bhumika Traders’. Permitting that at this stage would tantamount to denying opportunity to the respondent. It is not being disputed that wife of the present respondent no.1 is pursuing her business. She is an independent person, who is entitled to carry on such business and that would not permit the Gram Panchayat to indulge into any illegality in dealing with its employees. Even if, he was drawing the salary of Rs.18, 112/- per month, that is not the ruminative of his status and determinative of the fact whether he can be termed as workman or not. It is the nature of work which carried out by him will determine whether the person can fall into the category of ‘workman’ or not. Considering the nature of work that was taken from him of miscellaneous kind after the Octroi got abolished in the year 2001, even that contention has rightly not been upheld by the Labour Court.” 7.4 Thereafter, the learned Single Judge also considered the aspect of financial burden of Gram Panchayat, in para:10 of the order and observed thus: “10. So far as the aspect of 50% of the backwages is concerned, with much perseverance, a request is made on behalf of learned advocate Mr.Munshaw, considering the same on the ground that financial strength of the Gram Panchayat at loss and to much to be desired, therefore, the overall circumstances of the respondent no.1 should lead the Court to reduce the same. This has been, of course, resisted on the part of Mr. This has been, of course, resisted on the part of Mr. Mehta, who however, on instructions has admitted that wife of the present respondent no.1 is carrying on the business and has also not disputed the weal financial condition of the petitioner Panchayat. Considering all these aspects and overall facts and circumstances, the Court is inclined to reduce the percentage of back-wags from 50% to 30%.” 7.5 The aforesaid observations made by the learned Single Judge clearly indicate that not only both the issues in respect of allegations about gainful employment by Respondent No.1 on account of a shop which was run by his wife as well as the contention in respect of financial burden on the Gram Panchayat were raised before the learned Single Judge and both the aforesaid aspects were duly considered by the learned Single Judge and thereafter only the learned Single Judge modified the award passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot by reducing the percentage of back-wages from 50% to 30% to be paid to Respondent No.1. 8. In view of the above, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge as the learned Single Judge has taken care of both the arguments advanced by learned advocates before us and we are convinced that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error by modifying back-wages to the extent of 30% in favour of Respondent No.1 and hence we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 9. In view of the above, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. The same is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. In view of disposal of the main appeal, the connected Civil Application would stand dismissed.