Judgment K.M. Thaker, J.—By this petition, the petitioner, Savarkundla Nagarpalika, has brought under challenge award dated 30.5.2008 passed by the learned Labour Court, Amreli in Reference (LCA) No. 3 of 2006 (Old No. 144 of 2001) whereby, the learned Labour Court has directed the petitioner Nagarpalika to reinstate the respondent and to pay him 20% back wages. 2. The respondent herein raised industrial dispute against his termination. The said dispute culminated into aforesaid reference proceeding. In the reference proceeding, the respondent herein filed statement of claim alleging, inter alia, that he was engaged as a Clerk in the Land & Building Department of the petitioner Nagarpalika and was illegal terminated w.e.f. 31.8.1999. He also alleged that at the material point of time, he was drawing salary of Rs. 1350/- and aggrieved by his illegal termination he served notice dated 2.9.1999 claiming reinstatement and consequential benefits. He also claimed in the statement of claim that his notice was not responded and therefore, he had approached the learned Labour Court with a prayer for reinstatement with consequential benefits. 3. Initially, the petitioner Nagarpalika, as usual, showed complete negligence towards the proceedings and neither did it file its written statement nor anybody attended the proceeding. Hence, the proceedings were conducted ex-parte. The learned Labour Court passed award dated 3.8.2005. Subsequently, the petitioner Nagarpalika preferred Misc. Application No. 5 of 2005 praying for restoration of the said proceeding. By order dated 14.2.2006, the said Misc. Application was allowed and the reference proceedings were restored. After the restoration of the proceedings, the petitioner Nagarpalika filed its reply claiming that though it was true that the respondent was working as a Clerk, it was not true that he was entitled for relief prayed for. The petitioner Nagarpalika also disputed the averments in the statement of claim and claimed that the respondent was engaged on ad hoc and daily wages basis and that he had not completed work of 240 days. It is pertinent to note at this stage that except filing the written statement to the aforesaid effect, the petitioner Nagarpalika did not take any other step to defend the proceedings and/or to substantiate its case and even the assertions made in the written statement were also not substantiated and proved. 4. It is pertinent to note at this stage that except filing the written statement to the aforesaid effect, the petitioner Nagarpalika did not take any other step to defend the proceedings and/or to substantiate its case and even the assertions made in the written statement were also not substantiated and proved. 4. During the proceedings, the deposition / oral evidence of the respondent herein was recorded, however, as recorded by the learned Labour Court in the award, the petitioner Nagarpalika could not dislodge the respondent herein from his assertions made during his examination in chief and could not get anything disputed or controverted or could not bring out any contradiction by / through cross examination. 5. Again, the petitioner Nagarpalika showed total negligence and disinclination to defend the proceedings and did not examine and witness on its behalf nor did it try to produce any documentary evidence and/or substantiate the assertions made in the written statement. 6. The Nagarpalika also did not comply with respondent’s request, made by application Exh.8, for production of documents. 7. Though the petitioner Nagarpalika claimed in the written statement that the respondent had not put in work for 240 days in the preceeding 12 months, the said aspect was not even asserted much less established by the Nagarpalika by its evidence before the learned Labour Court. Under the circumstances, the said averments remain merely a reply, but an unsubstantiated one. 8. The learned Labour Court has recorded that the petitioner Nagarpalika could not disprove the case made out by the workman nor could it establish its own case. In such circumstances, more particularly in absence of any evidence on the part of the petitioner Nagarpalika, the learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the respondent had, by his evidence, established that his service was terminated and while terminating his service no procedure prescribed by law was followed and such assertions during examination in chief could not be and have not been disproved or dislodged by the petitioner through / by cross examination and thus, remain uncontroverted. 9. The learned Labour Court, therefore, concluded that the termination effected by the petitioner Nagarpalika was illegal. Resultantly, the learned Labour Court passed award directing the petitioner Nagarpalika to reinstate the respondent and pay him 20% back wages. 10. Heard Mr. Meena appearing for the petitioner Nagarpalika and Mr. Patel appearing for the respondent workman. 11. Mr. 9. The learned Labour Court, therefore, concluded that the termination effected by the petitioner Nagarpalika was illegal. Resultantly, the learned Labour Court passed award directing the petitioner Nagarpalika to reinstate the respondent and pay him 20% back wages. 10. Heard Mr. Meena appearing for the petitioner Nagarpalika and Mr. Patel appearing for the respondent workman. 11. Mr. Meena submitted that the petitioner Nagarpalika had raised only three contentions, viz. (i) that the provisions of the ID Act were not applicable to the Nagarpalika and that, (ii) the respondent had not put in work for 240 days and (iii) the Nagarpalika was facing financial crises. 12. From his submission, it comes out that the Nagarpalika had not disputed that the service of the respondent was terminated. Under the circumstances, the claim of the respondent that his service was terminated by the Nagarpalika remains or has become undisputed. 13. The petitioner Nagarpalika has also not claimed that while terminating the service of the respondent, any procedure prescribed by law was followed. 14. Hence, there is nothing on record (and it is not even the case of the petitioner) to assail the findings of the learned Labour Court that the service of the respondent was terminated by the petitioner and that before effecting termination, the petitioner had not followed the procedure prescribed by law. 15. Under the circumstances, the only question which remains before the learned Labour Court was about granting appropriate relief. The learned Labour Court having concluded that the termination was illegal and in absence of any contention regarding non-availability of vacancy, etc. granted relief of reinstatement. No case to challenge the said direction is made out before this Court also. 16. It is not claimed by the petitioner Nagarpalika that there is no sanctioned post and/or there is vacancy and the respondent cannot be accommodated. Since the learned Labour Court has directed reinstatement on original post, the petitioner will have to reinstate the respondent on the same post with the same terms on which he was engaged prior to his termination. 17. As noticed earlier, it is also clear that neither the petitioner has dislodged or disproved the respondents case, through his cross examination nor has it proved its own case with its own witness or documentary evidence. 17. As noticed earlier, it is also clear that neither the petitioner has dislodged or disproved the respondents case, through his cross examination nor has it proved its own case with its own witness or documentary evidence. No case has been made out by the petitioner Nagarpalika to interfere with the findings of the learned Labour Court that the termination was illegal and/or the direction granting reinstatement. 18. The contention that the provisions of ID Act are not applicable has not been pressed in service. 19. This leaves behind only one contention viz. about financial crises. The said contention would be relevant only so far as direction requiring the petitioner to pay 20% back wages is concerned. Even otherwise, the learned Labour Court has not recorded any cogent and legally sustainable reasons for awarding 20% back wages. The learned Labour Court has also overlooked the fact that even as per the case of the respondent, he had worked only for one year prior to his termination. Under the circumstances, even otherwise, the direction requiring the petitioner to pay 20% back wages is not justified and/or sustainable. 20. Mr. Patel for respondent has also not been able to successfully defend the said direction and has not seriously insisted for the said relief. Under the circumstances, so far as the direction granting relief of 20% back wages is concerned, the same is not sustainable and therefore, it is set aside. Considering the fact that the petitioner Nagarpalika had initially neglected the proceedings of the reference and the learned Labour Court was constrained to pass ex-parte award and then the workman was subjected to proceedings of Misc. Application and then he has been subjected to present proceedings also, it appears reasonable to award cost of Rs. 5,000/- in favour of the respondent. 21. As recorded above, no case for interfering with the direction directing reinstatement is made out. Hence, the said direction is not interfered with. At the same time, no justification for granting back wages is available on record hence, the same does not deserve to be sustained. Hence, the direction regarding back wages is hereby set aside. Petition is accordingly partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. The cost as aforesaid shall be paid to the respondent within 4 weeks from today.