Judgment K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the Award dated 02.02.2000 passed by the Labour Court in Reference (L.C.J.) New No. 1079 and Reference ( L.C.R) Old No. 771 of 81 whereby the petitioner is is directed to grant reinstatement with continuity of service with 30% backwages to the petitioner. 2. The respondent was appointed as Smashan Clerk on ad-hoc basis. As he has not possessed requisite qualification for the said post, vide resolution dated 21.08.1987 passed by the Working Committee, he was dismissed w.e.f. 01.10.1987. The respondent before approaching the Labour Court, Junagadh, filed Civil Suit challenging the same dismissal. The respondent without mentioning the fact regarding his filing a Regular Civil Suit challenging the said dismissal before the Civil Court, approached the Labour Court, Junagadh claiming for various reliefs and challenged the dismissal order by way of aforesaid reference. The Labour Court after adjudicating the matter, has passed the aforesaid award which is challenged in the present petition. 3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that in spite of the Resolution dated 21.08.1987 passed by the Working Committee giving dismissal of the respondent was produced on record before the Labour Court, the Labour Court has wrongly granted reinstatement. He further submitted that inspite of the findings of the Civil Court, the Labour Court has not accepted the same. He also submitted that as per the Resolution (Annexure B) passed by the Committee of the petitioner, the set was not sanctioned for the daily wager employees. Hence, the Labour Court has committed error in granting reinstatement with continuity of service to the respondent. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that it is not disputed that the respondent-Workman has worked for three years and nine months and he has worked continuously. On the contrary, employers’ representative has admitted the same. The appointment on sanctioned set up or not, will be required to be considered for regularization and not for retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. Learned advocate for the respondent submitted that Civil Court proceedings were not part of the Labour Court. Therefore, Labour Court could not have gone into the findings of Civil Court and he has also supported the order of backwages granted by the Labour Court. 5. 4. Learned advocate for the respondent submitted that Civil Court proceedings were not part of the Labour Court. Therefore, Labour Court could not have gone into the findings of Civil Court and he has also supported the order of backwages granted by the Labour Court. 5. As a result of hearing and perusal of the record, it seems that the respondent has attained the age of superannuation. Therefore, question of reinstatement does not arise at this stage. Only question which is left open is for backwages and retirement benefits pursuant to his continuity of service from the date of reference i.e. 08.02.1988. Moreover, it is found that Labour Court has rightly observed that respondent has worked from 01.12.1983 to 24.09.1987 which has been assumption on behalf of the opponent i.e. Management and same was not disputed and, therefore, keeping in mind Sections 25(B) and Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and not accepting Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, retrenchment is to be held bad. I am in complete agreement with the findings of the Labour Court. However, the Labour Court has not assigned any reasons for grant of backwages to the respondent. Therefore, the order of backwages is required to be quashed and set aside. The petition is partly allowed. 6. The respondent will be given retiral benefits with continuity of service from the date of reference within four months from today. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. 7. Since the petition is disposed of, Civil Application does not survive, the same is disposed of accordingly.