H. K. RATHOD, J. ( 1 ) THESE two petitions are arising from the award made by the labour Court, rajkot in Reference NO. 1518 of 1989 dated 27. 11. 2006 wherein the labour court has granted reinstatement without back wages for intervening period. ( 2 ) IN view of the said award, Special civil Application NO. 18896 of 2007 has been filed by the petitioner - State of Gujarat challenging the award of reinstatement and special Civil Application No. 22371 of 2007 has been filed by the petitioner - Gamara hamirbhai Sodabhai while challenging the award in so far as it relates to denial of back wages for interim period. Therefore, both these petitions have been heard together. ( 3 ) HEARD learned AGP Mr. Hukum singh for the petitioner and Mr. SP majmudar, learned Advocate for workman in sca NO. 18896 of 2007. ( 4 ) HEARD learned Advocate Mr. Majmudar for petitioner and Mr. Amit Patel, learned AGP for State in SCA No. 22371 of 2007. ( 5 ) WHILE challenging the award of reinstatement, learned AGP Mr. Singh has submitted that the labour court has committed gross error in granting reinstatement. He submitted that the labour court has not properly appreciated oral and documentary evidence produced by the establishment. He also submitted that the workman has not proved 240 days continuous service within 12 months preceding the date of alleged termination. He submitted that the workman has left the job at his own and, therefore, question of termination does not arise. These aspects have not been properly appreciated by the labour court while granting relief in favour of the workman. Therefore, according to him, labour court has committed gross error in granting reinstatement in favour of the workman. According to him, labour court ought to have rejected reference of the workman. Except these submissions, no other submission was made by learned AGP mr. Singh while challenging the award of reinstatement and no decision was cited by him in support of the submissions made by him before this Court. ( 6 ) LEARNED Advocate Mr. SP majmudar for the workman has supported the award in so far as it relates to the relief of reinstatement granted by the labour court. As regards denial of back wages for the intervening period, it was submitted by the learned Advocate Mr. ( 6 ) LEARNED Advocate Mr. SP majmudar for the workman has supported the award in so far as it relates to the relief of reinstatement granted by the labour court. As regards denial of back wages for the intervening period, it was submitted by the learned Advocate Mr. Majmudar before this court that the labour court has committed gross error in refusing back wages. According to him, once termination order is found to be void, ab initio, then, as a normal and natural consequence, workman is entitled for full back wages for the intervening period. As per his submission, gainul employment of the workman was not proved by the department before the labour court and, therefore, workman is entitled for full back wages for the intervening period. According to him, labour court has committed gross error in not granting back wages for the interim period and labour court is not justified in refusing the back wages as a whole. He also submitted that the labour court has erred in not considering the case of the petitioner for some part of back wages for interim period. Except these submissions no other submissions were made by learnec advocate Mr. Majmudar and no decision was cited by him in support of his submissions learned AGP Mr. Amit Patel appearing for the State of Gujarat in SCA NO. 22371 of 2007 has supported the award made by labour court in so far as it relates to denial of back wages for interim period. ( 7 ) I have considered the submission made by the learned Advocates for th parties. I have also perused the impugned award. I have also perused the document on record. ( 8 ) THE only question to be considere by this court is, whether the labour court has rightly granted the relief of reinstatement without back wages for interim period in favour of the workman or not? ( 9 ) AS emerging from the impugned award, the workman was appointed in July, 1985 as a watchman on daily wage basis. He remained in service upto the date of termination of his services by the establishment. After termination, dispute was raised which was in turn referred to for adjudication on 11. 9. 1989. ( 9 ) AS emerging from the impugned award, the workman was appointed in July, 1985 as a watchman on daily wage basis. He remained in service upto the date of termination of his services by the establishment. After termination, dispute was raised which was in turn referred to for adjudication on 11. 9. 1989. Vide Exh 3, statement of claim was filed by the workman and written statement thereto was also filed by the establishment before the labour court denying the averments made by the workman in the statement of claim. Workman was examined vide Exh. 16 and certain documents were produced by the workman before the labour court. One vallabhbhai Keshavji was examined before the labour court on behalf of the establishment at Exh. 55. Before the labour court, from the year 1984 to 1989, details of actual working days of workman were produced vide Exh. 53/1 (Tarij ). Vide Exh. 13, letter written by the Government Pleader to the workman was also produced on the record before the labour court. Both the parties closed their evidence vide Exh. 49 and 57 and thereafter, submissions were made before the labour court and thereafter, labour court examined question whether the workman is covered by the definition of workman or not as per section 2 (s) of the id Act, 1947. Ultimately, labour court has come to the conclusion that the workman is covered by the definition of workman as per section 2 (s) of the ID Act, 1947. ( 10 ) THEREAFTER, labour court examined the question as to whether the workman has completed 240 days continuous service within 12 months preceding the date of termination or not. For that, labour court has examined oral and documentary evidence on record. Labour court was aware about the fact that the burden is upon the employee to prove that he has completed 240 days within 12 months preceding the date of termination. Labour court has also considered as to whether the workman has discharged said burden or not. For examining that, labour court has considered evidence produced by the department vide exh. 53/1 and also considered the oral evidence of workman and thereafter examined cross examination of witness for the department and thereafter came to the conclusion that the workman had completed 240 days continuous service within 12 months preceding the date of termination. For examining that, labour court has considered evidence produced by the department vide exh. 53/1 and also considered the oral evidence of workman and thereafter examined cross examination of witness for the department and thereafter came to the conclusion that the workman had completed 240 days continuous service within 12 months preceding the date of termination. This finding of fact was recorded by the labour court on the basis of the documentary and oral evidence produced by the parties before it and after appreciating the evidence on record. Labour court has come to the conclusion that the services rendered by the workman were continuous services within the meaning of section 25b of the ID Act, 1947. Labour court has also considered the contention raised by the department that the services were not terminated but workman abandoned the job. For that, labour court considered letter Exh. 13/1 dated 11th April, 1989 which was referred to by the department. On that day, leave report was submitted by the workman because of household work and also informed the department on 16. 4. 89 that the workman was not able to remain present for duty. These two letters have been relied upon by the department and submissions made on the basis of the said letters were not believed by the labour court and then labour court recorded conclusion that in light of the reply given by the department, aforesaid contention is not tenable. In view of that, contention raised by the department about the abandonment of job by the workman at his own was not believed by the labour court and, therefore, labour court has come to the conclusion that once services are terminated by the department, then, it amounts to retrenchment and in that event, employer is required to show that section 25f has been complied with. There was no evidence to show that section 25f of the ID Act, 1947 was complied with by the establishment before terminating services of workman. In light of these facts and the decision of the apex court in case of MOHAN LAL V/s. BHRAT ELECTRONICS REPORTED IN AIR 1981 SC 1253 , labour court has come to the conclusion that the termination of the workman is void ab initio. In light of these facts and the decision of the apex court in case of MOHAN LAL V/s. BHRAT ELECTRONICS REPORTED IN AIR 1981 SC 1253 , labour court has come to the conclusion that the termination of the workman is void ab initio. ( 11 ) AFTER holding that the workman has become entitled for being reinstated in service, labour court has examined the question of back wages for interim period on the basis of the evidence of the workman on record. While examining the case of the workman for back wages, the labour Court has considered that after filing the case before the labour court in the year 1989, gave deposition after about nine years. The labour court has also considered that the nature of work which was performed by the workman was that of labourer and there is no any just reason for believing that such a workman would remain idle, without work for such a long period. Based upon such consideration, the labour court declined to grant any back wages for the intervening period and passed award of reinstatement without back wages for intervening period with benefit of continuity of service. ( 12 ) IN view of the aforesaid observations made by this court after perusing the award and after considering the submissions made by both the learned advocates, and also in light of the oral and documentary evidence produced by both the parties before the labour court vide Exh. 53/ 1 and also considering the oral evidence of the workman read with the cross examination of the witness for the department, according to my opinion, labour court has rightly come to the conclusion that the workman has completed 240 days continuous service of 240 days within 12 months preceding the date of termination. Labour court was also right in coming to the conclusion that the workman has proved continuous service of 240 days within the meaning of section 25b (2) of the ID Act, 1947 and it was never the case of the department that it has ever complied with section 25f of the ID Act while retrenching the workman but it was the case of the department that the workman abandoned job, not completed 240 days service and, therefore, there is no question of complying with section 25f of the ID Act,1947. Therefore, labour court was right in coming to the conclusion that the termination is violative of section 25f of the id Act, 1947 and violation of section 25f of the ID Act, 1947 has rendered termination void ab initio. Therefore, in such circumstances, normally being a natural relief, reinstatement must have to be granted as decided by the apex court in JT 2007 (7) SC 559 where the apex court has confirmed reinstatement in case when workman has proved completion of 240 days continuous service and section 25f was not followed by the department. Therefore, findings of fact recorded by the labour court for granting the relief of reinstatement in favour of the workman are just and proper and based upon the evidence on record and, therefore, same does not require any interference of this court in exercise of the extra ordinary powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 13 ) NOW, in respect of the question of back wages for intervening period which has been denied by the labour court, conduct of the workman is also relevant and necessary to be considered. Period of service rendered by the workman prior tc termination of service and the length of intervening period is also relevant for consideration of the question of back wages workman in the case before hand was appointed by the establishment in the year 1985 and thus, hardly worked for about 3/4 years prior to termination of his service and the length of intervening period come to about 17 years. Respondent workman is getting reinstatement in service because of the breach of the mandatory provisions of section 25f of the ID Act. However, considering the fact that the workman gave deposition in the case of 1989 after a period of about nine years, labour court was right in refusing back wages for interim period. Labour court was also right in drawing an inference that the workman doing such type of labour work would not remain unemployed or idle for such a pretty long period. Therefore, labour court was right in refusing the back wages for interim period of about 17 years. In the case of the year 1989 wherein statement of claim and written statement thereto were already filed, the workman gave deposition after about nine years from 1989. Workman remained negligent in giving his evidence after completion of the pleadings of the parties. Therefore, labour court was right in refusing the back wages for interim period of about 17 years. In the case of the year 1989 wherein statement of claim and written statement thereto were already filed, the workman gave deposition after about nine years from 1989. Workman remained negligent in giving his evidence after completion of the pleadings of the parties. If the workman would have been really unemployed, facing unemployment, then, his natural conduct would be such that he would have immediately tried to see that his evidence is recorded by the labour court so that the case could be finalized but he gave deposition after about nine years and such conduct would lead us to believe that workman is not facing unemployment and, therefore, labour court was right in refusing back wages for interim period though employer has not proved before the labour court that the workman was gainfully employed elsewhere and, therefore, disentitled for back wages for interim period. This aspect was considered by the apex court in case of KRISHI UTPADAN MANDLI samiti V/s. PAAL SINGH REPORTED IN 2007 (3) SUPREME 493 . Relevant observations made by the apex court in para 11 of the said judgment is reproduced as under: "11. The labour court ex exercises its wide jurisdiction under Section 11a of the industrial Disputes Act, but such jurisdiction must be exercised judiciously. A relief of reinstatement with all back wages is not to be given without considering the relevant factors therefore, only because it would be lawful to do so. As noticed herein above, in this case, even the basic requirements for grant of any relief had not been found by the Labour Court. " ( 14 ) SIMILARLY, in HARYANA STATE cooperative LAND DEVELOPMENT bank V/s. NEELAM [ (2005 ) 5 SCC 911, the apex court observed as under: "18. It is trite that the courts and tribunals have plenary jurisdiction have discretionary power to grant an appropriate relief to the parties. The aim and object of the Industrial Disputes Act may be to impart social justice to the workman but the same by itself would not mean that irrespective of his conduct a workman would automatically be entitled to relief. The procedural laws like estoppel, waiver and acquiescence are equally applicable to the industrial proceedings. The aim and object of the Industrial Disputes Act may be to impart social justice to the workman but the same by itself would not mean that irrespective of his conduct a workman would automatically be entitled to relief. The procedural laws like estoppel, waiver and acquiescence are equally applicable to the industrial proceedings. A person in certain situation may even be held to be bound by the doctrine of acceptance sub silentio. The respondent herein did not raise any industrial dispute questioning the termination of her services within a reasonable time. She even accepted an alternative employment and has been continuing therein from 10. 8. 1988. In her replication filed before the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court while traversing the plea raised by the appellant herein that she is gainfully employed in HUDA with effect from 10. 8. 1988 and her services had been regularized therein, it was observed; 6. The appellant workman had already given replication to the ALC cum conciliation Officer, stating therein that she was engaged by HUDA from 10. 8. 1988 as clerk cum typist on daily-wage basis. The applicant workman has the right to come to the service of management and she is interested to join them. " ( 15 ) IN view of the aforesaid observations made by the apex court in para 18 of the decision, while considering the aim and object of the industrial laws, it is also necessary to consider the conduct of the workman, whether he is entitled automatically to any relief from the department or not. Procedural laws like estoppel, waiver and acquiescence are equally applicable to the industrial proceedings. ( 16 ) IN DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, gsrtc V/s. KADARBHAI J. SUTHAR, reported IN 2007 II CLR 83 = 2007-3-SCALE 39], respondent driver was dismissed from service for rash and negligent driving of bus. He was acquitted by the Magistrate in Criminal Case. Labour Court awarded reinstatement without back wages. Respondent driver filed writ petition seeking back wages which was allowed by granting full back wages. Letters Patent Appeal by management was partially allowed reducing back wages to the extent of 75 % back wages and, thereafter, matter reached before the hon ble apex court. Apex Court held that there is no automatic entitlement to back wages on termination being not lawful. It was held that the labour court was justified in denying back wages. Letters Patent Appeal by management was partially allowed reducing back wages to the extent of 75 % back wages and, thereafter, matter reached before the hon ble apex court. Apex Court held that there is no automatic entitlement to back wages on termination being not lawful. It was held that the labour court was justified in denying back wages. Apex Court observed in para 6, 7,8 and 9 as under: "6. When fixing the back wages, several factors need to be noted. It is a well settled position in law that on the finding that termination was not lawful, there is no automatic entitlement to full back wages. In hindustan TIN WORKS P. LTD. V. EMPLOYEES OF HINDUSTAN TIN works P. LTD. and ORS. AIR 1979 SC 75 , a three Judge Bench of this Court laid down at p. 478 of LLJ: 11. In the very nature of things there cannot be a straight-jacket formula for awarding relief of back wages. All relevant considerations will enter the verdict. More or less, it would be a motion addressed to the discretion of the Tribunal. Full back wages would be the normal rule and the party objecting to it must establish the circumstances necessitating departure. At that stage, the Tribunal will exercise its discretion keeping in view all the relevant circumstances. But the discretion must be exercised in a judicial and judicious manner. The reason for exercising discretion must be cogent and convincing and must appear on the face of the record. When it is said that something is to be done within the discretion of the authority, that something is to be done according to the rules of reasons and justice, according to law and not humour. It is not to be arbitrary, vague and fanciful but legal and regular (See SUSANNAH SHARP v. WAKEFIELD (1981) AC 173, 179 ). In PGI OF MEDICAL EDUCATION and RESEARCH CHANDIGARH V/s. RAJKUMAR AIR 2001 SC 479 , this Court found fault with the High Court in setting aside the award of the Labour Court which restricted the back wages to 60% and directing payment of full back wages. It was observed thus: "the Labour Court being the final court of facts came to a conclusion that payment of 60% back wages would comply with the requirement of law. It was observed thus: "the Labour Court being the final court of facts came to a conclusion that payment of 60% back wages would comply with the requirement of law. The finding of perversity or being erroneous or not in accordance with law shall have to be recorded with reasons in order to assail the finding of the Tribunal or the Labour Court. It is not for the High Court to go into the factual aspects of the matter and there is an existing limitation on the High Court to that affect. " again at paragraph 12, this Court observed at p. 548 of LLJ: "12. Payment of back wages having a discretionary element involvement in it has to be dealt with in the facts and circumstances of each case and no strait jacket formula can be evolved, though, however, there is statutory sanction to direct payment of back wages in its entirety. [see HINDUSTAN MOTORS V/s. TAPAN KUMAR BHATTACHARYA and ANR. 2002 II LLJ 1156 (SC)]. 8. Additionally, the Labour Court had taken note of the previous acts of misconduct by the workman while denying the back wages. That aspect was completely lost sight of by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench. Merely because the Corporation did not challenge the order of reinstatement, that does not lead to a conclusion that it accepted any illegality in the departmental proceedings. As a matter of fact, the Labour Court clearly noted that the workman admitted the legality and propriety of the inquiry held against him. 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, the inevitable conclusion is that the discretion of payment of back wages cannot be sustained. The orders passed by the learned single Judge as partly modified by the division Bench stand set aside to the aforesaid extent. 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, the inevitable conclusion is that the discretion of payment of back wages cannot be sustained. The orders passed by the learned single Judge as partly modified by the division Bench stand set aside to the aforesaid extent. " ( 17 ) CONSIDERING the facts of the case before hand for considering his case for back wages, considering the tenure of his work performed with the department of about 3/4 years and also considering the length of interim period which is of about 17 years and also considering his conduct that after completion of pleadings of the parties, he gave deposition after a period of about nine years in the case of the year 1989, according to my opinion, considering the matter as a whole, and also in light of the apex court decision as referred to above, according to my opinion, labour court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the workman completed 240 days continuous service as defined u/s. 25b within 12 months preceding the date of termination of the ID Act, 1947 and as the establishment was not able to point out as to how and in which manner it complied with sec. 25f of the ID Act, labour court is justified in holding that the termination is violative of section 25f of the id Act, 1947 rendering the order of termination void ab initio and in such circumstances, was perfectly justified in granting reinstatement without back wages as per my aforesaid discussion and the award as a whole is just, proper and balanced award. Neither Mr. Singh, learned AGP for the petitioner State nor Mr. Majmudar for the petitioner in SCA NO. 22371 of 2007 were able to point out any infirmity or jurisdictional error in the award in question. In view of the apex court decision in GSRTC v/s. Kadarbhai J. Suthar referred to above, the labour court was justified in refusing the back wages for intervening period. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar has also not been able to point out that merely because termination is found to be void ab initio, and merely because the other side is not able to prove gainful employment, workman becomes entitled automatically for back wages. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar has also not been able to point out that merely because termination is found to be void ab initio, and merely because the other side is not able to prove gainful employment, workman becomes entitled automatically for back wages. ( 18 ) THEREFORE, considering the award as a whole, according to my opinion, relevant facts and circumstances have been rightly considered and appreciated by labour court in passing he award of reinstatement without back wages for intervening period and therefore such award does not warrant any interference of this court in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the constitution of India. Therefore, there is no substance in these petitions and the same are required to be dismissed. ( 19 ) IN result, both the petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs. Notice issued by this Court in SCA NO. 18896 of 2007 is discharged.