JUDGMENT : M.R. SHAH, J. 1. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Surendranagar passed in Reference (LCS) No. 67 of 1992, by which the Labour Court has partly allowed the said Reference directing the Petitioner to reinstate the Respondent with back wages w.e.f. 1.9.1997. 2. That the Respondent-workman was appointed and working as a daily wager clerk under the Scarcity Relief work initially for a period of 30 days, which came to be extended from time to time. That according to the Respondent, his services came to be terminated and/or he came to be retrenched on and from 2.7.1987 without following any procedure under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and without any notice and/or notice pay and/or retrenchment compensation and therefore, he raised industrial disputes after a period of four years and six months about the termination of his service and the same was referred to the Labour Court, Surendranagar, which was numbered as Reference (LCS) No. 67 of 1992. That the Respondent-workman made the claim that he had worked in the establishment of the employer for a period of one year as clerk as daily rated workman and that his services have been terminated without following provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. That the Petitioner denied the claim of workman for reinstatement submitting that Respondent was appointed as scarcity relief work for which he has been employed by different orders for a fixed term of 30 days at a time and his employment came to an end on the expiry of 30 days on each occasion and in all, he has worked for 162 days only for which salary has been paid to him. It was submitted that as he was not worked for 240 or more days in a 12 months preceding the date of termination, the provisions of Section 25F would not be applicable. It was also submitted that no person after the Petitioner has been offered fresh appointment on the expiry of the previous fixed term appointment to a new person. That despite the above, learned Labour Court, Surendranagar by judgment and order dated 26.8.1997 partly allowed the said reference directing the Petitioner to reinstate the Respondent without back wages. It was also submitted that no person after the Petitioner has been offered fresh appointment on the expiry of the previous fixed term appointment to a new person. That despite the above, learned Labour Court, Surendranagar by judgment and order dated 26.8.1997 partly allowed the said reference directing the Petitioner to reinstate the Respondent without back wages. It appears that being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the Labour Court dated 26.8.1997 passed in Reference (LCS) No. 47 of 1992, the Petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No. 6181 of 1998 before this Court, which came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 29.1.1999 and the learned Single Judge remanded the matter to the Labour Court for deciding the said reference afresh in accordance with law and on merits and in light of the observations made in the said order. It appears from the order passed by the learned Single Judge that the learned Single Judge had categorically observed that "there is not only dispute about the continuous employment for a period of one year, but also about non-compliance of Section 25G and Section 25H of the Act. However, from the perusal of the award, I find that Labour Court has not recorded any finding as to the existence of condition requires for the operation of Sections 25F, 25G or 25H before declaring that there has been violation of Section 25H and 25G." The learned Single Judge has also observed that while making an award, no finding has been recorded as to the number of days by which the employee has worked immediately before the alleged retrenchment. The learned Single Judge has also observed that it is not recorded in the finding that any person junior to the Respondent-workman was working as on the date of services of Respondent-workman were terminated by not offering him job was working the establishment and he was allowed to continue. The learned Single Judge further observed that "it appears that without applying mind to the existence of conditions requiring the operation of relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court was declared that the employer has committed breach of Sections 25F and 25G. The learned Single Judge further observed that "it appears that without applying mind to the existence of conditions requiring the operation of relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court was declared that the employer has committed breach of Sections 25F and 25G. It was also not applied mind to the question raised before it that it was an appointment for a fixed term on a work which in the very nature of it, namely the scarcity relief work, was of a temporary nature and the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) are applicable to the facts of the present case." That thereafter, on remand the again the Labour Court by judgment and order dated 24.9.2001 has partly allowed the said reference directing the Petitioner to reinstate the Respondent with back wages and other benefits w.e.f. 1.9.1997 on the ground that Petitioner has failed to adduce/lead any further evidence. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 24.9.2001 passed by the Labour Court, the Petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Shri Chauhan, learned advocate for the Petitioner has vehemently submitted that Labour Court has materially erred in not considering the observations made by the learned Single Judge while remanding the matter to it. It is submitted that learned Labour Court has materially erred in holding that Petitioner has failed to lead any evidence and, therefore, there is a breach of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. It is further submitted that on non-production of the seniority list the Labour Court has materially erred in holding that the name of the Respondent would be above the seniority list. It is submitted that the Labour Court has materially erred in not properly appreciating the nature of work and the appointment of the concerned Respondent-workman as daily wager clerk on the scarcity relief work and that too for limited period. It is submitted that as such in the facts and circumstances of the case the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act would be applicable. Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of H.K. Makwana vs. State of Gujarat and Others, 1989 (2) GLH 12 and the decision in the case of H.K. Makwana vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (1994) 2 GLR 1002 . Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of H.K. Makwana vs. State of Gujarat and Others, 1989 (2) GLH 12 and the decision in the case of H.K. Makwana vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (1994) 2 GLR 1002 . It is requested to allow the present Special Civil Application by further submitting that as such the post on which the Respondent was serving as daily wager clerk is not available as the scarcity work relief was not at all there and the appointment of Respondent as daily wager clerk on the scarcity relief work. Therefore, it is requested to allow the present Special Civil Application. 4. Petition is opposed by Ms. Shah, learned advocate for Shri D.K. Puj, learned advocate for the Respondent. Relying upon the affidavit in reply and additional reply, it is requested to dismiss present petition by submitting that some other persons are made permanent and/ or their services have been regularized by giving benefit of resolution dated 17.10.1968. It is further submitted that despite the matter was remanded to the Labour Court, the Petitioner did not lead any evidence and, therefore, the Labour Court has rightly drawn adverse inference and has rightly held that the termination of the Respondent was in breach of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and has rightly allowed the said reference directing the Petitioner to reinstate the Respondent with back wages only from 1.9.1997. She has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Secretary, Haryana and Another vs. Chet Ram, 2006 SCC 574 in support of her submissions that the burden of proof to prove the termination of service on non-renewal of contract of employment on its expiry u/s 2(oo)(bb). She has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tannery and Footwear Corporation of India vs. Raj Kumar and Another, (2002) 9 SCC 623 . Relying upon the additional affidavit and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of APSRTC, Cuddapah vs. K. Bajjanna, (2002) 9 SCC 739 . Therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present Special Civil Application. 5. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. Relying upon the additional affidavit and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of APSRTC, Cuddapah vs. K. Bajjanna, (2002) 9 SCC 739 . Therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present Special Civil Application. 5. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. Considering the case on behalf of the Petitioner before the Labour Court and considering the order of appointment of the Respondent, it appears that the appointment of the Respondent in the year 1987 was initially for a period of 30 days as daily rated clerk on scarcity relief work and the same came to be extended from time to time and it appears that on completion of scarcity relief work the services of the Respondent came to be terminated. As the appointment of the Respondent as a daily rated clerk on scarcity relief work, the case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of H.K. Makwana (Supra) and J.J. Shrimali (Supra). As the appointment of the Respondent was for fixed term and on scarcity relief work, Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act would be applicable and therefore, the Labour Court has materially erred in not considering the aforesaid facts and in holding that the termination of the Respondent is in breach of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act 1947. It is to be noted that as such the Respondent has failed to establish that he had worked for more than 240 days in last preceding year. As such there is no finding given by the Labour Court on the aforesaid aspect. Even the Respondent-workman has failed to prove before the Labour Court that any other person junior to him came to be continued in service. The Labour Court has held against the Petitioner mainly on the ground that Petitioner has failed to lead any evidence despite the matter was remanded by this Court. However, it is to be noted that as such the learned Single Judge did not remand the matter to the Labour Court so as to enable the Petitioner to lead the evidence. The learned Single Judge remanded the matter by observing in paras 3 and 4 as under: “3. In the present case, there is not only dispute about the continuous employment for a period of one year, but also about non-compliance of Section 25G and Section 25H of the Act. The learned Single Judge remanded the matter by observing in paras 3 and 4 as under: “3. In the present case, there is not only dispute about the continuous employment for a period of one year, but also about non-compliance of Section 25G and Section 25H of the Act. However, from the perusal of the award, I find that Labour Court has not recorded any finding as to the existence of condition requires for the operation of Sections 25F, 25G or 25H before declaring that there has been violation of Section 25H and 25G. It may be noticed that while making an award, no finding has been recorded as to the number of days by which the employee has worked immediately before the alleged retrenchment. It is not recorded in the finding that any person junior to the Respondent-workman was working as on the date of services of Respondent-workman were terminated by not offering him job was working the establishment and he was allowed to continue, nor there is a finding, notwithstanding specific pleading by the employer that after work was not offered to the workman since March, 1987, no new person has been appointed against him, contrary to that.” 6. Thus, it appears that without applying mind to the existence of conditions requiring the operation of relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court was declared that the employer has committed breach of Sections 25F and 25G. It was also not applied mind to the question raised before it that it was an appointment for a fixed term on a work which in the very nature of it, namely the scarcity relief work, was of a temporary nature and the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) are applicable to the facts of the present case. The award, therefore, suffers on the face of it from the vice of being a non-speaking order and directing something without recording finding necessary for granting such relief. The existence of necessary facts which are condition precedent for application of law cannot be assumed without examining the record and appreciating the material which was before it. 7. Under the circumstances, the finding given by the Labour Court that termination is in breach of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and is based on no evidence, which cannot be sustained. 8. 7. Under the circumstances, the finding given by the Labour Court that termination is in breach of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and is based on no evidence, which cannot be sustained. 8. Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the additional affidavit by the Respondent and subsequent the services of the other persons came to be regularized by giving the benefit of resolution dated 17.10.1988 is concerned, it might be that subsequently all those persons might be satisfied all the conditions of the resolution dated 17.10.1988. It is to be noted that as such this Court is required to consider the impugned judgment and order passed by the Labour Court and the material which was available before the Labour Court. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the appointment of the Respondent was for a period of fixed term for scarcity relief work and considering the fact that even the industrial dispute was raised after a period of four years and six months, the Labour Court has materially erred in allowing the said reference directing the Petitioner to reinstate the Respondent with back wages w.e.f. 1.9.1997. It appears that while passing the impugned judgment and order the Labour Court as such not properly appreciated the purpose and objects of remanding the matter to it. The observation made by the learned Single Judge is very much unambiguous and self-explanatory, however the Labour Court has completely ignored the same. 10. Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the learned advocate for the Respondent is concerned, on considering the same none of the decisions would be of any assistance of the Respondent considering the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, petition succeed and the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Surendranagar passed in Reference (LCS) No. 67 of 1992 is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No costs.