JUDGMENT : PARESH UPADHYAY, J. 1. By this judgment, total nine identical petitions are disposed of, the details of which are as under. These nine petitions are in three groups, as detailed hereunder. 2.1 The first group is of five petitions being Special Civil Application Nos. 4257, 4258, 4398, 4399 and 4400 of 2007. These five petitions are filed by the Employer, challenging the common award passed by the Labour Court, Surendranagar dated 15.12.2006. By the said award, five References, the details of which are as under, are partly allowed by the Labour Court. The Labour Court has awarded reinstatement, without back wages. Reinstatement is challenged by the Employer. Reference No. Name of the Workman SCA No. 04 of 1994 Uday Chandrakanat Rawal 4257 of 2007 07 of 1994 Virendra M. Dave 4398 of 2007 07 of 1997 Yashwant P. Dave 4399 of 2007 10 of 1997 Ghanshyam B. Dave 4258 of 2007 85 of 1999 Kishor G. Satade 4400 of 2007 2.2 In above five petitions, the concerned workmen are the respondents. Of those five persons, two workmen have filed cross petitions challenging the same award, to the extent relief is denied to them, the details of which are as under. Name of the Workman SCA No. Cross Petition No. Virendra M. Dave 12209 of 2007 4398 of 2007 Yashwant P. Dave 12211 of 2007 4399 of 2007 2.3 Thus, in above referred seven petitions, the subject matter of challenge is the common award passed by the Labour Court, Surendranagar dated 15.12.2006. 3.1 Special Civil Application No. 4401 of 2007 is filed by the Employer challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, Surendranagar in Reference (LCS) No. 107 of 1997 dated 15.12.2006. By the said award, the Labour Court has ordered reinstatement of the concerned workman (Rajubhai Kanabhai), however without back wages. 3.2 The same award is challenged by the concerned workman (Rajubhai Kanabhai), by filing Special Civil Application No. 12210 of 2007, to the extent relief is denied by the Labour Court to him. 4. Heard Mr.D.G.Chauhan, learned advocate for the employer, and Mr.Mukesh Rathod & Mr.Yogen Pandya, learned advocates for the workmen. 5. Mr.D.G.Chauhan, learned advocate for the Corporation (employer) has submitted that, the workmen had not produced any evidence that any of them had completed 240 days in the year immediately preceding to the date of discontinuation of service. 4. Heard Mr.D.G.Chauhan, learned advocate for the employer, and Mr.Mukesh Rathod & Mr.Yogen Pandya, learned advocates for the workmen. 5. Mr.D.G.Chauhan, learned advocate for the Corporation (employer) has submitted that, the workmen had not produced any evidence that any of them had completed 240 days in the year immediately preceding to the date of discontinuation of service. It is submitted that, neither there was any pleading, nor there was any evidence to contend that, there was violation of Section 25F and/or of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is submitted that, the Labour Court had proceeded on adverse inference, which was erroneously drawn against the employer, which was unwarranted in the facts of this case and therefore, the same be interfered with by this Court. It is submitted that, workmen were engaged for scarcity work, for maintaining hand-pump etc. and therefore, at least for the said activity, the Corporation could not be termed to be an industry. Alternatively, it is submitted that, the Labour Court could have awarded compensation to the concerned workmen. It is further submitted that, since the impugned awards were stayed during the pendency of these petitions, the concerned workmen are already paid wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is further submitted that, no reinstatement could have been granted by the Labour Court and therefore, no further relief be granted by this Court. It is submitted that, the impugned awards passed by the Labour Court be quashed and set aside. It is submitted that the petitions filed by the Corporation be allowed and those by the workmen be dismissed. In support of these submissions, learned advocate for the Corporation has placed reliance on the following decisions. (i) 2006 (1) SCC 530 - Regional Manager, SBI v. Rakesh Kumar Tewari (ii) 1994 (2) GLR 1002 - H.K. Makwana v. State of Gujarat (iii) 2007(13) SCC 343 - Ranip Nagarpalika v. Babuji Gabhaji Thakore (iv) 2005 (8) SCC 750 - Surendranagar District Panchayat v. Dahyabhai Amarsinh (v) 2011 (1) GLH 550 - Manager, Gujcomasol Pestisides Department v. Kiritkumar Babulal Patel 6. On the other hand, learned advocates for the workmen have submitted that, the Labour Court has ordered only reinstatement, without back wages, and the Labour Court has committed error to that extent. On the other hand, learned advocates for the workmen have submitted that, the Labour Court has ordered only reinstatement, without back wages, and the Labour Court has committed error to that extent. It is submitted that, there was specific assertion of the workmen before the Labour Court that, at the time of discontinuance of service, no procedure was followed by the Corporation and no compensation was paid to the workmen and thus, the said discontinuance of service was in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is submitted that, it was additionally contended before the Labour Court that, after the termination of the service of these workmen, when new persons were engaged in service by the Corporation, the present workmen ought to have been called by the Corporation, which it had not done, and thus, there was violation of Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is further submitted that, no seniority list was produced by the employer before the Labour Court and thus, the employer could not prove that the discontinuance of service of these workmen was in due compliance of last come first go basis, and thus, the discontinuance of service was also violative of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is further submitted that, the date of termination of the workmen was very much before the Labour Court and under these circumstances it was prayed before the Labour Court that the employer be directed to produce record which could be solely in the custody of the Corporation, and which was ordered also, but complete record was not produced before the Labour Court, and therefore adverse inference has rightly been drawn by the Labour Court. It is submitted that, on behalf of the workmen, reliance was placed on the evidence of one Mr.Ansari, at Exh.25, who was the officer of the Corporation, to contend that, it was admitted by this witness of the Corporation that, neither identity card was issued, nor seniority list was maintained nor any pay-slip was issued to these workmen. It is submitted that, under these circumstances, the workmen could not have produced any evidence, and since it was not produced by the employer also inspite of the order of the Labour Court, the ultimate award is passed, which this Court may not interfere. It is submitted that, under these circumstances, the workmen could not have produced any evidence, and since it was not produced by the employer also inspite of the order of the Labour Court, the ultimate award is passed, which this Court may not interfere. It is further submitted that, independent of proving the fact about completion of 240 days, in the circumstances noted above, it was undisputed position that new persons were already appointed by the Corporation, and further that, at the time of discontinuance of service, seniority was not maintained by the Corporation. It is submitted that, considering all these aspects, the Labour Court has granted relief, which this Court may not interfere. It is submitted that, this Court may interfere only to the extent full relief is denied by the Labour Court. It is submitted that, any interference by this Court in the impugned awards, in the facts of this case, would ultimately result in restoration of a situation of unfair labour practice, and considering that aspect also, this Court may dismiss the petitions filed by the Corporation. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Bhavnesh Kumar Dwivedi v. M/s. Hindalco Industries Limited reported in AIR 2014 SC 2258 , more particularly para:28 thereof. 7. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, this Court finds as under. 7.1 The present employer Corporation is party to hundreds of petitions filed before this Court, either as a petitioner, or as a respondent, where the subject matter is the award of the Labour Court. To contend that the Corporation is an industry in those matters, but is not an industry, so far the present workmen are concerned, is a misconceived contention and the same is rejected. 7.2 So far the contention of the employer, with regard to the workmen having failed to discharge their obligation to prove their case is concerned, the Labour Court has already gone into that aspect in detail. On the basis of the evidence of the employer itself, a situation was created where, the workmen could not be expected to produce additional material in their favour and therefore, order was passed by the Labour Court directing the Corporation to produce the relevant material. On the basis of the evidence of the employer itself, a situation was created where, the workmen could not be expected to produce additional material in their favour and therefore, order was passed by the Labour Court directing the Corporation to produce the relevant material. The Corporation withheld the relevant material atleast to some extent, which would change the complexion of the matter. Labour Court has recorded cogent reasons as to why adverse inference was required to be drawn against the Corporation. Having gone through the reasons recorded by the Labour Court, this Court does not see any reason to interfere in the said finding. 7.3 Independent of above, this Court also finds that, there was ample material on record before the Labour Court to arrive at the conclusion that, there was violation of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. There was specific assertion of the workmen before the Labour Court that, at the time of discontinuance of service, no procedure was followed by the Corporation and no compensation was paid to the workmen. Thus, the said discontinuance of service was in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also come on record that, after the termination of the service of these workmen, when new persons were engaged in service by the Corporation, the present workmen ought to have been called by the Corporation, which it had not done. Thus there was violation of Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is also a matter of record that no seniority list was produced by the employer before the Labour Court and thus, the employer could not prove that the discontinuance of service of these workmen was in due compliance of last come first go basis, and thus, the discontinuance of service was also violative of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. If all these circumstances are kept in view in totality, any interference by this Court in the awards passed by the Labour Court ordering reinstatement without back wages, the same would restore illegality, which can not be done. For these reasons, the petitions filed by the employer Corporation need to be dismissed. If all these circumstances are kept in view in totality, any interference by this Court in the awards passed by the Labour Court ordering reinstatement without back wages, the same would restore illegality, which can not be done. For these reasons, the petitions filed by the employer Corporation need to be dismissed. 7.4 So far the authorities relied by learned advocate for the Corporation as noted above are concerned, there can not be any dispute with regard to proposition of law enunciated therein, however it is the latest judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India, which would govern the controversy, and the said decision as noted above, is Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi (supra), more particularly Para:34 thereof. Further, the relief granted by the Labour Court is to be seen in the facts and evidence presented before it, which the Labour Court has already recorded in detail, and this Court has not found any infirmity therein. For this reason, the judgments relied by the learned advocate for the Corporation will not take the case of the Corporation any further. 8. This Court also finds that, the Labour Court denied back wages to the workmen. The workmen have challenged the said awards to this extent. For the reasons recorded above, when this Court has arrived at the conclusion that no interference is required in the impugned awards, this Court does not see any reason to modify the impugned awards to the extent, even as prayed for by the workmen in their petitions. The petitions filed by the workmen also therefore need to be dismissed. 9. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is passed. 9.1 All these petitions i.e. the petitions filed by the Employer, as well as the workmen - both, are dismissed. 9.2 The impugned awards passed by the Labour Court, Surendranagar, the details of which are recorded in Para Nos. 1 to 3 above, are upheld. 9.3 The employer is directed to give effect to the said awards within a period of two months from today. 9.4 Rule is discharged in each petition. Interim relief stands vacated. No order as to costs. (PARESH UPADHYAY, J.) 10. After this judgment is pronounced, learned advocate for the employer has requested to stay this judgment for some reasonable time to enable the employer to approach the higher forum. 9.4 Rule is discharged in each petition. Interim relief stands vacated. No order as to costs. (PARESH UPADHYAY, J.) 10. After this judgment is pronounced, learned advocate for the employer has requested to stay this judgment for some reasonable time to enable the employer to approach the higher forum. Considering the fact that two months' time is already granted by this Court to implement the awards, as noted above, this request is rejected. All writ petitions dismissed.