JUDGMENT
J.N. Bhatt, J.
1. The General Manager of the appellant Bank, Ahmedabad District Cooperative Bank Ltd. has assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge, on February 7, 1995 in Special Civil Application No.12127 of 1993 whereby the learned Single Judge observed by making clarification that, the reinstatement implies within it that workman shall be immediately put on job from which his services are terminated and reinstatement cannot mean that reinstatement at option and free-will of the employer as and when he finds work to offer and further observed that the employer- management is directed to reinstate the workman forthwith as and when he reports back on duty on the post from which he was discharged/ terminated.
2. We have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. We have, also, examined and evaluated the factual profile emerging from the record of the appeal.
3. Initially, the admitted facts may be stated here, at this juncture, so as to appreciate the issue in focus:
(i) The workman who was working in the Bank as a casual labourer/Peon and he was given employment and/or work as and when the Peon or Clerk was on leave, or absent. As per his case, he came to be engaged first time on 10.11.1980.
(ii) He approached the Labour Court, at Ahmedabad, claiming that he was working as a Clerk since November 1980 and his services were illegally terminated. The Labour Court dismissed his application.
(iii) An appeal was filed at the instance of the workman before the Industrial Court. The Court while allowing the appeal, directed reinstatement of the workman without specifying in the order as to the post on which he was being reinstated.
(iv) The employer Bank questioned the appellate order by filing Special Civil Application No. 663 of 1992 which was admitted with interim relief against the backwages. The workman was ordered to be reinstated as a daily wager and/or given the work, as and when it was available, as Peon or as a Clerk. The workman declined to accept the order and approached this Court by way of contempt petition, which was also dismissed.
(v) The workman, once again approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 12127 of 1993 which was disposed of at the time of admission stage. However, the learned Single Judge directed the Bank to reinstate the respondent workman on the post from which he was discharged/terminated. It was, also, observed in the said order that the workman was working as a Clerk.
4. The employer Bank has questioned the above order of the learned Single Judge by filing this appeal upon invocation of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, inter- alia, contending that the direction for reinstatement observing that he was working as a Clerk is not legal and valid, as the workman is otherwise also not qualified to hold the post.
5. After having given our anxious thoughts and considerations to the submissions advanced before us and the relevant proposition of law on the point, as well as, the overall picture emerging from the spectrum of the facts of the present case, we are of the clear opinion that the order of reinstatement upon finding termination of the services of a daily wager will mean that, on reinstatement, a casual labourer has to work sometimes as a Peon or otherwise. It is, therefore, required to be clarified and accordingly modified that, the reinstatement of the respondent workman who was working as a daily wager, is for labour work only. In this context, it is directed that the management shall reinstate the workman – respondent before us, forthwith as and when he reports back on duty for the same work from which he was discharged or terminated as a daily wager, as directed by the Tribunal.
6. The appeal shall stand allowed partly to the aforesaid extent, without any order as to costs.