JUDGMENT : K.A. Puj, J. The petitioner - Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service, through its Transport Manager, has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the award dated 31.1.2006 passed by the Labour Court at Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No.1628 of 1999. The Labour Court while disposing of the said reference has passed an order of reinstatement with 25% of back wages. This Court has issued rule on 19.9.2006 and pending the petition subject to compliance with Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ad-interim stay was granted in terms of para-7(c) whereby the implementation, execution and operation of the award was stayed by the Court. 2. During the pendency of this petition the respondent workman has attained the age of superannuation on 30.10.2010 and hence there is now no question of reinstatement of the respondent workman. The Court has to consider the effect of the impugned award in terms of the monitory benefits. Pursuant to the interim order passed by the Court on 19.9.2006 the respondent was paid 17B payment from 31.10.2006 to 30.10.2010. 3. Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that there were five sanctioned posts of Store Officer in Ahmadabad Municipal Transport Service. Two posts were lying vacant and hence the advertisement was published in the year 1997 for filling up the same through the general category candidate, one post in Scheduled Tribe Category. In repose to the said advertisement the respondent workman, who belonged to general category also made an application. The applications received by the petitioner were scrutinised and Staff Selection Committee prepared select list of two candidates and waiting list of two candidates. The respondent herein was at Serial No. 2 in the waiting list. The Staff Selection Committee did not find any of the three candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribe competent enough to be selected and, therefore, resolved that the said posts would be carried forward and the authority will have to take necessary action for filing up all the posts reserved for Scheduled Tribe. It was also resolved that the life of the waiting list would be one year and can be extended to further period of six months. The Staff Selection Committee thereafter passed a Resolution on 15.3.2007 resolving that the name of the respondent be kept in waiting list. It was also resolved that the life of the waiting list would be one year and can be extended to further period of six months. The Staff Selection Committee thereafter passed a Resolution on 15.3.2007 resolving that the name of the respondent be kept in waiting list. The Transport Manager thereafter forwarded proposal to Municipal Secretary seeking permission to fill up the post by way of operating waiting list that necessary attempts should be made to fill up the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste category. Accordingly, the waiting list was operated and one Mr. Khandvala as well as present respondent were appointed on temporary basis on 23.5.1997. 4. Mr. Munshaw further submitted that later on due to various administrative grounds a proposal was forwarded by the Transport Manager on 23.6.1999 to the effect that various posts be abolished from schedule and accordingly the Transport Committee passed a Resolution on 28.6.1999 resolving that two posts of Store Officer be abolished and the concerned incumbent be terminated from service. By virtue of this Resolution the respondent herein who was appointed purely on temporary and adhoc post on a post reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate was terminated from service by an order dated 28.6.1999. 5. Being aggrieved by this order of termination dated 28.6.1999 the respondent herein approached the Labour Court, Ahmedabad by way of filing a Reference (LCA) No.1268 of 1999 praying for reinstatement in service with back wages. The Labour Court after considering the statement of claim put up by the respondent and written statement of the petitioner passed an award on 31.1.2006 directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service with 25% back wages and cost of Rs. 1,000/-. 6. It is this award which is under challenge in the present petition. 7. Mr. Munshaw at the out set has made it clear that though specific ground is raised to the effect that the respondent is appointed in the supervisory capacity and hence he is not considered to be workman, he has not pressed this point at the time of hearing of this petition. Mr. Munshaw further submitted that the respondent was appointed only on temporary basis on the post which was abolished and hence the respondent has no right to continue on that post. Mr. Munshaw further submitted that the respondent was appointed only on temporary basis on the post which was abolished and hence the respondent has no right to continue on that post. He has further submitted that the appointment of the respondent was on a post reserved for Scheduled Tribe category candidate and due to non-availability of the candidate he was issued temporary appointment order on the basis of Resolution passed by the Transport Committee. It is further submitted that the temporary appointment was till the availability of the reserved category candidate. He has further submitted that since the Transport Committee has resolved to abolish two posts of the cadre of Store Officer on the ground of non-availability of work and fund, the respondent herein who was junior most was discontinued by the authority. In this view of the matter, there was no question of non-compliance with the provisions of Sections 25F, G, and H of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is further submitted that the present case is also covered by the provisions contained in Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Because of non-availability of the post, work and fund the respondent cannot be reinstated as Store Officer. 8. Mr. Munshaw in support of his submissions relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Namita Asthana v. Gujarat Sheep & Wool Development Corporation Ltd., reported in 1999(1) GLH 469 , wherein it is held that, 'it is well established by a catena of judicial decision that the power to create, continue or abolish a post is inherent in the administration and a policy decision was taken by the management/administrative necessities. As a result of abolition of post, the service of its incumbent may be required to be terminated but such termination is neither dismissal nor removal as understood within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The abolition of a post is not a penalty against any employee and, therefore, opportunity of showing cause against the proposed penalty as in the case of dismissal or removal, does not arise. Whether a post should be retained or abolished is essentially a matter for the administration/management to decide and such a decision if taken, cannot be set aside by the Courts. 9. Whether a post should be retained or abolished is essentially a matter for the administration/management to decide and such a decision if taken, cannot be set aside by the Courts. 9. Based on the aforesaid judgment of this Court and considering the facts that the respondent was merely on temporary basis post reserved for Scheduled Tribe which was abolished by the management subsequently, the award passed by the Labour Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 10. Mr. D.J. Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that there was vacant available post in the sanctioned setup and the respondent made an application. The respondent's application was duly scrutinised and the same was found to be in order and an interview was held by the petitioner and after finding satisfactory result, the respondent was appointed on the regular post as a workman. He has further submitted that other person appointed along with the respondent on the day and by way of same resolution, namely, one Mr. Khandwala is still continued in the service and he is as of this date also serving with the petitioner on the same post and enjoying the status of a permanent employee. He has, therefore, submitted that the discriminatory treatment was given by the petitioner to the two similarly situated employees for the reasons best known to the petitioner. Mr. Bhatt further submitted that the petitioner has no authority to abolish the post. Even otherwise no materials are produced before the Labour Court justifying their stand. It is also submitted that the respondent was appointed on regular post and no period was prescribed in his appointment order. It is settled position of law that even with regard to temporary or adhoc employee the provisions contained in Section 25F are required to be complied with. Admittedly in the present case, no notice was issued nor any opportunity of being heard was given to the respondent and straightway termination order came to be passed. He has, therefore, submitted that the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is in accordance with constitutional provisions as well as provisions contained in Industrial Disputes Act and the said award requires no interference by this Court while exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. In support of his submission Mr. He has, therefore, submitted that the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is in accordance with constitutional provisions as well as provisions contained in Industrial Disputes Act and the said award requires no interference by this Court while exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. In support of his submission Mr. Bhatt has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2010 (126) FLR 55 (SC), wherein it is held that, in the case of termination of casual employee what is required to be seen is whether a workman has completed 240 days in the preceding 12 months or not. If sufficient materials are shown that the workman has completed 240 days then his service cannot be terminated without giving notice or compensation in lieu of it in terms of Section 25-F of the Act. 12. Mr. Bhatt has also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, reported in 2010 (124) FLR 700 (SC), wherein it is held that while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution in matters like the present one, the High Courts are duty bound to keep in mind that the Industrial Disputes Act and other similar legislative instruments are social welfare legislations and the same are required to be interpreted keeping in view the goals set out in the preamble of the Constitution and the provisions contained in Part IV thereof in general and Articles 38, 39(a) to (e), 43, and 43A in particular, which mandate that the State should secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people, ensure equality between men and women and equitable distribution of material resources of the community to sub-serve the common good and also ensure that the workers get their dues. 13. Mr. Bhatt has, therefore, submitted that considering the award passed by the Labour Court in light of the statutory provisions contained in the Constitution as well as in the Industrial Disputes Act and the law laid down by the Apex Court on this aspect, the award passed by the Labour Court does not require any interference by this Court and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 14. 14. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and having considered their rival submissions and also the award passed by the Labour Court, the Court is of the view that the Labour Court has committed an error in passing an order of reinstatement with 25% back wages. It is an admitted position that the respondent's name was initially included in the waiting list. Thereafter, he was appointed purely on temporary basis and that too on a post which is reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate. Since the candidate belonging to the Scheduled Tribe is not available, the appointment of the respondent was made on adhoc basis. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and financial position of the petitioner Corporation, the decision was taken to abolish the post and hence the respondent being the junior most candidate his services came to be terminated. As a matter of fact, as per decision of this Court when the post is abolished and person is relieved from his service it cannot be said to be a termination and hence the provisions contained in Sections 25F, G, and H are not required to be complied with. The Labour Court has not considered this aspect and has held that the petitioner has not complied with the provisions of Section 25F as no compensation was given to the respondent. This finding arrived at by the Labour Court is not supported by the relevant provisions of law and judicial decisions. Mr. Bhatt's another submission was that the petitioner Corporation has no right to abolish the post as the post was sanctioned by the State and it is a sanctioned post. This submission of Mr. Bhatt is also not acceptable in view of the fact that considering the financial position and work load the Corporation has passed Resolution to the effect that two posts are not required to be continued and hence those posts were abolished. The Corporation is working under the provisions of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act and hence they are competent enough to take decision. Ultimately the decision has to be approved by the State Government. There is no dispute about the fact that the decision taken by the Corporation for abolition of posts was ever objected by the State Government. The Corporation is working under the provisions of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act and hence they are competent enough to take decision. Ultimately the decision has to be approved by the State Government. There is no dispute about the fact that the decision taken by the Corporation for abolition of posts was ever objected by the State Government. It is, therefore, clear that a person appointed on temporary basis on post reserved for particular class of employee if that post is abolished, in that situation, if that person is relieved or discharged from the service it cannot be said to be termination and no compliance of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act is required. 15. In the above view of the matter, the decision arrived at by the Labour Court is contrary to law and requires to be quashed and set aside. Hence, the award passed by the Labour Court is hereby quashed and set aside. It is, however, made clear that pursuant to the impugned order passed by this Court 17B benefits are given to the respondent and that would for the period of four years and it is stated at the bar that about Rs. 10,000/- p.m. were given by way of 17B payment for four year. Thus, the total amount paid, comes to about Rs. 5 lacs. Though the impugned award is quashed and set aside the interim order granting 17B payment is not disturbed. It would, at the most, be treated as compensation given to the respondent workman. With these directions and observations this petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the above extent without any order as to costs. Petition Allowed.