Judgment Ravi R. Tripathi, J.—District Ayurvedic Officer, District Panchayat, Rajkot is before this Court being aggrieved by judgment and award dated 4.7.2006 passed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court in reference (LCR) No. 526 of 1992; whereby, the learned Judge of the Labour Court is pleased to partly allow the reference of the workman and declared the action of the petitioner of termination of service of the workman as illegal and quashed the same and ordered that workman should be reinstated treating his services to be continuous but without back wages. 2. Learned advocate, Mr. Munshaw, appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to Annexure-A which is dated 28.4.1988. It is issued by the District Ayurvedic Officer mentioning that in view of the recommendation of Medical Officer, Ayurvedic Hospital, ‘Hadmatiya’, dated 1.3.1988, the workman – Balkrishna Mohanbhai Danidhariya, be appointed as a part time daily wager and be paid amount to Rs. 375/- on the basis of 5 hours work per day with effect from 1.3.1988 for a period of 89 days. It is also mentioned in the said order that on expiry of the term, he will stand automatically relieved. 3. The learned advocate then invited the attention of the Court to Page No. 13, Annexure-C which is a communication from the respondent-workman to the Medical Officer, Hadmatiya, dated 2.12.1991 and it is stated that earlier I had made an application dated 2.6.1991 and thereafter, I had filed a case by engaging one Shri Ghiyabhai as an advocate and the judgment has come against me and therefore, I may be relieved and my business of selling vegetable is going well and I do not want to do anything further, I do not want to serve and therefore, I am passing this writing to you. 4. The learned advocate for the petitioner then invited the attention of the Court to an Annexure-D which is dated 30.4.1992 and the same is also executed by the respondent-workman; wherein, it is stated that, I have to go to Rajkot in a local train at 8.00 a.m. in the morning and therefore, I will not be able to attend the work. I may be relieved from 1.5.1992, I do not want to serve any more. 5. I may be relieved from 1.5.1992, I do not want to serve any more. 5. The learned Judge of the Labour Court has discussed about these two communications and has recorded the finding that signatures of the respondent-workman was obtained on a blank paper and thereafter, the writings are made. The Court asked learned advocate, Mr. Munshaw, for the petitioner to make available for perusal these two documents. The learned advocate Mr. Munshaw submitted that as a practice, he does not retain the original papers but the Xerox copy of these two papers are available, which he made available for perusal. On perusal of these documents, it cannot be said that the writing is subsequently made on the blank paper on which the signatures of the workman were obtained. Incidentally, these Xerox copies are signed as true copy by Medical Officer Class-II, Ayurvedic Hospital, Kherdi, District Rajkot. What is interesting is that the second communication dated 30.4.1992 is executed in the presence of the Sarpanch, ‘Hadmatiya’ (Junction) Gram Panchayat, Tal. Pad-dhari. This Court has reason to believe that the Sarpanch will not be a party to such a fraud which is alleged to have taken place. 6. Coming to other aspects of the case, it is not in dispute that since 2005, all Ayurvedic Clinics are closed. The appointment letter was given for a fixed period of 89 days. Respondent - workman was appointed as part time daily wager, he was supposed to discharge 5 hours duties per day for which he was paid Rs. 375/-. 7. It is also the case of the respondent-workman which finds favour with the learned Judge of the Labour Court that there were other orders issued on the same lines in the name of his father and brother. But then, the respondent-workman has not taken trouble to produce such orders for the consideration of the learned Judge of the Labour Court and in turn, by this Court. 8. However, even in absence of those letters, the learned Judge of the Labour Court has believed the assertion of the respondent-workman and held that this practice is adopted by the authority only with a view to see that workman is deprived of his legitimate right of getting permanent employment and other benefits. 8. However, even in absence of those letters, the learned Judge of the Labour Court has believed the assertion of the respondent-workman and held that this practice is adopted by the authority only with a view to see that workman is deprived of his legitimate right of getting permanent employment and other benefits. This Court is of the opinion that inference drawn by the learned Judge of the Labour Court is uncalled for more particularly, in absence of those orders being produced before the learned Judge. Beside that, this Court has no reason to believe that a person who is engaged in selling vegetable will like to continue to work in a Government employment which is merely in the nature of part time daily wager. Besides only meager amount was received as wages. As against that he can easily earn his bread out of business of selling of vegetables. 9. Learned advocate, Ms. Vinita Vinayak, appearing for the respondent-workman vehemently tried to convince this Court on the point that the learned Judge has committed no error in passing the award of reinstatement in service without back wages. The learned advocate for the respondent-workman also invited the attention of the Court to various paragraphs of the judgment and award of the Labour Court wherein, relevant aspects of the matter are discussed. 10. On careful consideration and careful perusal of the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court and other relevant material, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court is not acceptable. 11. In the result, this petition is allowed. Judgment and award passed by the Labour Court is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.