JUDGMENT 1.0 The District Panchayat through Deputy Engineer, Roads & Building Division along with Deputy Engineer, Panchayat, Roads & Building Sub-division, Dhrangadhra is before this Court being aggrieved by award and order dated 3rd February 2003, passed in Reference (LCS) No. 128 of 1994 by the learned Judge of the Labour Court, Surendranagar. The learned Judge of the Labour Court, Surendranagar was pleased to partly allow the Reference and hold that action of the petitioner – establishment dated 26th February 1992 is illegal and ordered the workman to be reinstated on her original post with continuity of service with full back wages within 30 days from the date of publication of the award. The learned Judge was also pleased to award Rs.200/- as cost to the workman. 2.0 Learned advocate Mr. Kakkad for the petitioner invited attention of the Court to Annexure 'A', which is a Statement of Claim. It is dated 25th October 1996. This is one of the most vague and cryptic Statement of Claim, the Court has come across. What is stated in the Statement of Claim is: 'I , the applicant, was serving with the opponent – establishment for last 10 years and I was discharging my duties regularly'. The Statement of Claim is a zerox copy and therefore, this Court has reason to believe that this very Statement of Claim must be before the learned Judge of the Labour Court. It is further stated therein that: “The wages of the applicant monthly / daily were (blank). That, service record of the applicant for the service period is clear. That, on 26/02/1992, the applicant, by oral / written instructions, without any fault of the applicant and without paying any right or interest, terminated for the service. While terminating the services of the applicant, the opponent – establishment has not taken into consideration the seniority. That, at the place of the applicant, new workmen are engaged. Such act of the opponent is illegal. The applicant had requested the opponent – establishment on date (blank) to continue the applicant in service and to pay the wages for the period, the applicant was at home. The applicant had made such request in writing. Such request of the applicant was not taken into consideration by the opponent and no reason was given as to why the same is not taken into consideration. The applicant had made such request in writing. Such request of the applicant was not taken into consideration by the opponent and no reason was given as to why the same is not taken into consideration. Thus, there is a breach of Section 25(F)(H)(G) of the ID Act.” 2.1 The learned advocate for the petitioner invited attention of the Court to Written Statement filed by the petitioner, which is produced at Annexure 'B'. This is again a zerox copy and therefore, this Court has reason to believe the same must be before the learned Judge of the Labour Court. It is dated 7th September 1998. In the Written Statement, the entire Statement of Claim is denied and it is stated that 'the contents are not true'. Besides that, it is mentioned in Para 4 that, 'the workman has not given any evidence about her work, either documentary or oral, setting out the facts like, as to on which road, at which place (village), under which officer / work-charge karkoon the workman was working. In the event such details are set out and the accurate information is made available, then by verifying the record of that particular period (year and month), the same can be made available to the applicant'. 2.2 Similarly, in Para 6 of the Written Statement it is mentioned that, 'the applicant be directed to, as to in which office of the opponent, on which date, at which place (village), which road, the duties were discharged, be called for and a copy of the same may be given to the opponent'. The Deputy Executive Engineer in the Written Statement did mention that, 'as and when the details asked for in Para 6 of the Written Statement are made available, the opponent will file their additional defence and the right to produce the relevant documents is reserved'. 2.3 Coming to the award and order, it is running in 03 pages, though contains, 11 paragraphs and the operative part. The learned Judge has not taken care to know as to at what place (village), on which date and under which officer / work-charge karkoon, the workman was working. The learned Judge has referred to the definition of the term 'Workman' contained in Clause (S) of Section 2 of the ID Act. The learned Judge relied upon the deposition of the workman at exh. The learned Judge has referred to the definition of the term 'Workman' contained in Clause (S) of Section 2 of the ID Act. The learned Judge relied upon the deposition of the workman at exh. 10, wherein, it is stated that, 'she is serving with the opponent for last 10 years and that, they were paying her the minimum wages' and the learned Judge has held that the workman has proved her case and therefore, the award is passed. 3.0 Taking into consideration the latest decision rendered by the Honourable the Apex Court, wherein, the Honourable the Apex Court has held in no uncertain terms that, 'when such is the position, there is no question of passing an award of reinstatement'. 3.1 This petition was filed on 30th July 2003. It came up for consideration of the Court on 1st August 2003 and the Court issued Notice returnable on 26th August 2003 and in the meanwhile, the order of payment of back wages was stayed. Meaning thereby, the Court had not stayed the reinstatement, but, the workman did not take any action to get the award implemented so far as reinstatement is concerned. Subsequently, on 8th September 2003, the Court passed an order issuing Rule and Notice as to interim relief and hearing of Rule was made returnable on 1st October 2003. During the pendency of the petition, the Court was pleased to grant ad-interim relief in terms of Para 10(B) on condition that the petitioner – Panchayat deposits a sum of Rs.25,000/- in this Court on or before returnable date. Para 10(B) included 'stay against reinstatement'. Later on, it is recorded by order dated 21st November 2003 that, 'the amount ordered by this Court by order dated 8th September 2003 was deposited with this Court on 26th September 2003. As the process issued by this Court was served to one Shri MH Chauhan on behalf of the respondent, the office was directed to issue Notice to the respondent Hemiben Devabhai @ Hirabhai, C/o. Shri Himatsinh Chauhan intimating that an amount of Rs.25,000/- is deposited in this Court and that the respondent shall remain present in this Court on 5th December 2003'. Thereafter, except adjournments, no progress is made in the matter. Thereafter, except adjournments, no progress is made in the matter. 3.2 In the year 2003, the workman filed a Civil Application being No. 4604 of 2006 claiming the benefits flowing from Section 17B of the ID Act as stay against reinstatement was also granted. The said Civil Application was granted. Learned advocate Mr. Nilesh Shah for the respondent – workman states that, the respondent – workman is getting the benefits flowing from Section 17B. 4.0 Be that as it may, the question remains as to whether, this is a fit case for 'allowing the award and order to operate'. This Court is of the considered opinion that, taking into consideration the Statement of Claim, Written Statement and award, in which all material points are missing, the award and order dated 3rd February 2003, passed in Reference (LCS) No. 128 of 1994 cannot be allowed to stand. The same is required to be quashed and set aside. 4.1 The learned advocate for the respondent – workman submitted that the amount deposited by the petitioner – District Panchayat be ordered to be paid to the workman as compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. Taking a liberal view in the matter, the request is granted. 4.2 On inquiry, the Registry informs that the amount deposited by the petitioner – District Panchayat was deposited in a Fixed Deposit, which is renewed from time to time. It is last renewed on 15th March 2011 for three years. That being so, the Registry is directed to pay this amount to the respondent – workman within two weeks along with the interest accrued thereon by A/c. Payee cheque, in the name of the respondent – workman. 4.3 Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.