Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1175 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Dilipbhai Babubhai Patel

2014-12-22

S.R.BRAHMBHATT

body2014
JUDGMENT : S.R. Brahmbhatt, J. The petitioners in all these petitions are same and the respondents are workmen in whose favour the Presiding Officer of Labour Court, Valsad has passed orders directing reinstatement of the workmen with 25% of backwages and continuity of service vide order dated 30.12.2010. As all these matters pertaining to the similar question and parties are same in respect of the order in question, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners, first party employer have approached this Court by way of these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia challenging the award and order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Valsad, holding that the termination of the workmen was wholly illegal contrary to the provision of law and, therefore, required to be quashed and set aside and hence ordered reinstatement of the workmen on their original place with continuity of service and 25% of backwages and cost of Rs.1500/-. This order is challenged in this group of petitions. 3. Facts broadly stated would indicate that the workmen were engaged as daily wagers in the establishment of the petitioners and their services were brought to an end somewhere in the year 1999 without following due procedure of law and in disregard of provision of Section 25-F and other provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity). The workmen individually raised dispute qua the termination of their services, which came to be referred to the competent Court on account of failure of conciliation proceeding, wherein they were marked as references and the Court rendered decision after recording its finding qua non-compliance with Section 25-F, as a result whereof the termination was found to be vitiated and illegal and hence ordered reinstatement with 25% of backwages with cost, as mentioned in the operative part of the order. The detail of the references, date of termination and the reference number, wherefrom Special Civil Applications are arrived, are set out herein below. Sr. No. SCA No. Respondent name Date of Termination Reference no. The detail of the references, date of termination and the reference number, wherefrom Special Civil Applications are arrived, are set out herein below. Sr. No. SCA No. Respondent name Date of Termination Reference no. LCV No. 1 SCA 940/12 Dilipbhai Babubhai Patel 09/05/99 233/2000 2 SCA 941/12 Champakbhai Mohanbhai Patel 09/05/99 235/2000 3 SCA 942/12 Anilbhai Laxmanbhai Patel 09/05/99 237/2000 4 SCA 943/12 Rameshbhai Sapurbhai Patel 09/05/99 238/2000 5 SCA 944/12 Sureshbhai Navalbhai Patel 09/05/99 239/2000 6 SCA 945/12 Dilipbhai Rudkabhai Patel 09/05/99 240/2000 7 SCA 946/12 Shankarbhai Budhiyabhai Patel 09/05/99 241/2000 8 SCA 947/12 Subhashbhai Babarbhai Patel 09/05/99 242/2000 9 SCA 948/12 Hirubhai Chaganbhai Patel 09/05/99 255/2000 10 SCA 949/12 Somabhai Babaliyabhai Raot 09/05/99 256/2000 11 SCA 950/12 Rupabhai Budhiyabhai Jadav 09/05/99 257/2000 12 SCA 951/12 Shukkarbhai Lacchubhai Gamit 09/05/99 258/2000 13 SCA 952/12 Kimjibhai Ranabhai Birari 09/05/99 259/2000 14 SCA 953/12 Devlubhai Budhiuyabhai Raot 09/05/99 261/2000 15 SCA 954/12 Pidiyabhai Mangabhai Patel 09/05/99 262/2000 16 SCA 955/12 Khushalbhai Mangabhai Jadav 09/05/99 263/2000 17 SCA 956/12 Jagubhai Raghubhai Birari 09/05/99 264/2000 18 SCA 957/12 Satishbhai Umedbhai Bhoya 09/05/99 265/2000 19 SCA 959/12 Mahadubhai Janyabhai Gavit 09/05/99 267/2000 20 SCA 960/12 Sukkarbhai Budhiyabhai Raot 09/05/99 268/2000 21 SCA 961/12 Bahadurbhai Lachchubhai Gamit 09/05/99 269/2000 22 SCA 962/12 Janyabhai Gojubhai Gavit 17/06/99 272/2000 4. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioners after making submission, at length, had sought permission to place on record the written submission also, which were permitted along therewith in order to comply with the earlier directions and the office orders are also placed. In order to appreciate the submissions on behalf of the petitioners, the written submissions are reproduced as under; 1. It is submitted that vide order dated 21.03.2012 passed by the Hon'ble Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Jhaveri) in the Special Civil Application Nos. 1574 of 2012 to 1580 of 2012 with 1582 of 2012 to 1607 of 2012. And other group of Special Civil Application No.940 to 957 of 2012 with 959 to 962 of 2012 following order has been passed. "Rule returnable on 30.04.2012. Interim relief qua continuity of service and back wages is granted on condition that the respondents workmen shall be reinstated in service within a period of thirty days from today. And other group of Special Civil Application No.940 to 957 of 2012 with 959 to 962 of 2012 following order has been passed. "Rule returnable on 30.04.2012. Interim relief qua continuity of service and back wages is granted on condition that the respondents workmen shall be reinstated in service within a period of thirty days from today. It is clarified that if the workmen are not reinstated within the prescribed period, it shall be open to the respondent's workmen to move the competent Court for appropriate orders for monthly wages under Section 33(C) (2) as if they were in continued service and back wages as well. If any statement is made for compliance of order in contempt proceedings, the petitioners shall comply with the same." 2. It is submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by the Hon'ble Court, Executive Engineer, Daman Ganga Canal Vishakha Vibhag No.3, Balitha (Vapi) of vide office order no.95 of 2012 dated 31.05.2012 the respondent workmen are reinstated as per the office order dated 31.05.2012. The said office order 95 of 2012 issued by the Executive Engineer, Daman Ganga Canal Vishakha Vibhag No.3, Balitha (Vapi) is subject to the conditions mentioned therein. The condition no.1 of the office order stipulates that this order of reinstatement of the respondent workmen is based on the final outcome of this Special Civil Applications, which is pending before the High Court of Gujarat. 3. It is submitted that so far the Special Civil Application No.958 of 2012 and Special Civil Application No.1581 of 2012 are concerned, the respondent workman has expired and therefore, the matter against the said workman has not been admitted vide order dated 21.03.2012. 4. The petitioner herein challenges the order and award dated 30.12.2010 passed by the Labour Court partly allowed the reference and directed to reinstate to the respondent workmen with benefits of continuity of service at the original post with 25% back wages and also awarded cost of Rs.1500. The Respondent workman was working as a daily wagers with the Irrigation Department of the petitioner between the years from 1991 to 1999 as and when they were required and they were relived in the year 1999. submission A. The respondent workman was Rojamdar and nature of work was seasonal and they have been paid for the work done by them during the period when they were engaged. submission A. The respondent workman was Rojamdar and nature of work was seasonal and they have been paid for the work done by them during the period when they were engaged. B. The learned Labour Court failed to appreciate the respondent workman was daily wager Rojamdar and their service came to an end in the year 1999 as there was no work. C. The learned Judge failed to appreciate that the respondent workman was working in only in case of need during the seasonal period. They have been assigned the work of distribution water, cleaning the canal etc. D. It is submitted that as the work of the respondent was seasonal, after completion of work their services would automatically comes to an end. It is submitted that in the reported decision 2009 (17 SCC page 326) wherein matter has been remanded back in case where the issue of the seasonal work has not been decided. It is submitted that as per the evidence in Chief examination as well cross-examination of witness Jaynitilal Nathalal Patel (Executive Engineer) where he has supported that there was repairing work of canal, distribution water to the canal and cleaning of mud and removing of debris gathered near the trees situated near the canal. The workman was working on daily wages basis and they are relieved before the Munson Seasons as their work was not required. It is submitted that the cross examination of the said witness is relevant, which supports the nature of work being carried out by the workman. The respondent workmen were not regularly appointed as they have been engaged only for project of Canal of the Daman Ganga Dam. E. That the respondent workman who was Rojamdar has not completed 240 days in a presiding financial year before the termination. F. Before the Reference Court there was no demand for the production of the muster of the workmen for the year between the 1995 to 1999 by the workmen. G. That the muster roll produced by the petitioner employer of years 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 are the documents showing their presence of the workmen and it would not be inferred that documents are in complete and therefore, adverse inference could not be drawn that there was a continuity of service throughout. G. That the muster roll produced by the petitioner employer of years 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 are the documents showing their presence of the workmen and it would not be inferred that documents are in complete and therefore, adverse inference could not be drawn that there was a continuity of service throughout. When there is a no demand for production of document of muster then burden is not discharged of the workmen in view of the settled position. H. That it is the responsibility of workman to prove that he has completed 240 days in a presiding year before the termination. Onus is on workman to prove on the base of cogent evidence-Initial burden of proof can not be placed upon an employer. Filling of an own Affidavit by workman can not be regarded as sufficient evidence-Order of the reinstatement made in absence of discharged of burden of proof by workman. In a reported decision in case of Ranip Nagarpalika v. Babhji Gabhaji Thakore and Ors., reported in 2008 (2) GLH page-45, wherein it has been held as under; Para-13 of the judgment; "Analysing the above decision of this Court, it is clear that the provisions of the Evidence Act in terms do not apply to the proceedings under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act. However, applying general principles and on reading the aforestated judgments, we find that this Court has repeatedly taken the view that the burden of proof is one of the claimant to show that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. This burden is discharged only upon the workman adducing Evidence both oral and documentary. In the case of termination of daily wage earner there will be no letter of appointment or termination. There will also be know receipt or proof of payment. Thus, in most cases the workman (Claimant) can only call upon the employer to produce before the Court the nominal muster roll for the given period, the letter of appointment or termination, if any, the wage register, the attendance register etc. drawing of adverse inference ultimately would depend there after on facts of which case. Thus, in most cases the workman (Claimant) can only call upon the employer to produce before the Court the nominal muster roll for the given period, the letter of appointment or termination, if any, the wage register, the attendance register etc. drawing of adverse inference ultimately would depend there after on facts of which case. The above decision however make it clear that mere affidavit or self serving statements made by the claimant/workman will not suffice in the matter of discharge of the burden place by law on the workman to prove that he had worked for 240 days in the given year. The above judgment further lay down that mere non-production of muster roll perse without any plea of suppuration by the claimant workman will not be the ground for the Tribunal to draw an adverse inference against the management. Lastly, the above judgment lay down the basic principle, namely, that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution will not interfere with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court unless they are perverse. This exercise will depend upon the facts of each case." Para-15 of the judgment: "It was held in all these cases that the burden of proof lies on the workman to show that he had worked continuously for 240 days for the preceding one year and it is for the workman to adduce evidence apart from examining himself to prove the factum of being in employment of the employer. Para-16 of the judgment: "It is to be noted that the appellant has produced materials to show that the claim of the respondents that they had worked from 1991 was patently wrong. In fact finding has been recorded that one of the respondents had worked since January, 1994 contrary to the claim of having worked from 1991. In view of the fact that the Labour Court and the High Court have not considered the matter in the proper perspective and the view expressed is contrary to the decision in several decisions referred to above, the orders of the Labour Court and the High Court cannot be sustained. Para-17 of the Judgment: "There was needed for factual adjudication in the basis of the materials adduced by the parties. That apparently has not been done. Para-17 of the Judgment: "There was needed for factual adjudication in the basis of the materials adduced by the parties. That apparently has not been done. We therefore, set aside the orders of the Labour Court, Learned Single Judge and division Bench of the High Court and remit the matter afresh. It has to specifically record a finding as to whether the claim of the workman of continuance of service is acceptable. It has also to be decided as to whether the workman had completed 240 days of service. That decision is vital to see whether Section 25-(F) of the Act has any relevant." I. It is submitted that as per the Government Resolution dated 1988 petitioners may have to complete 240 days continuously in each financial years. As they have not completed 240 days in any of the financial years for the benefit of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 issued by the R&B Department (Dolatbhai Parmar). J. The learned Judge add in awarding 25% back wages to the respondent workman without any basis. It is submitted that as per the finding recorded by the Labour Court there are that the some of the respondent workman who has been engaged in their agriculture operation and some of them where doing the Labour work which has been admitted by them in their deposition. So in light of the aforesaid evidence on the record of the case they would not entitle to get 25% back wages as awarded by the learned Labour Court. K. It is submitted that question of committing the breach of 25(F), (G) and 25(H) would not exist. In view of the material and evidence brought on records. L. There is no evidence on record that after termination of the service the juniors have been continued or they have been engaged for the said work. 5. K. It is submitted that question of committing the breach of 25(F), (G) and 25(H) would not exist. In view of the material and evidence brought on records. L. There is no evidence on record that after termination of the service the juniors have been continued or they have been engaged for the said work. 5. It is submitted that vide order dated 18.10.2013 clarification has been sought by the respondent workmen from the Hon'ble Court by filing Civil Application 10671 to 10677 of 2013 and Civil Application No.10679 to 10703 of 2013 preferred in the Special Civil Applications where in the interim relief qua continuity of service granted by this Court vide order dated 21.03.2012 in the main matter being Special Civil Applications No.1574 to 1607 of 2012 and Special Civil Application No. 1022 to 1029 of 2012 pertains to the period of service during which petitioners were not in service when the reference was pending before the Labour Court i.e. from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement back in the service. The Hon'ble Court has observed in para-3 of its order as under; Paragraph-3 "it appears that the applicants-workmen have been reinstated in service. However, if the applicants prefer an application before the present respondents that they are ready to forgo back wages upto 31.12.2013, the respondents may consider the case of the applicants sympathetically for continuity of service and give effect of continuity of service from 01.01.2014. Applications stand disposed of accordingly" Thereafter, on the basis of the aforesaid order the Executive Engineer, Daman Ganga Canal, Vhishakha Division-3, Balitha (Vapi) has passed reason order dated 11.06.2014, wherein it has been ordered that 32 daily wagers would be entitled to get wages as a daily wagers. They are not entitled to get benefit of regularity in service. The seniority will be considered subject to the condition enumerated in the said order. The learned advocate for the respondents has also in articulated manner placed his contentions in reply to the contentions of the State, which also needs to be set out hereinbelow; Contentions of petitioner Reply of respondents Irrigation Department is not an industry AIR 1998 SC 1182, Desraj v. State of Punjab. The learned advocate for the respondents has also in articulated manner placed his contentions in reply to the contentions of the State, which also needs to be set out hereinbelow; Contentions of petitioner Reply of respondents Irrigation Department is not an industry AIR 1998 SC 1182, Desraj v. State of Punjab. As held by this Hon'ble Court in full Bench decision in case of Gujarat Forest Producers, Gatherers & Forest Workers Union v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2004(2)GLR 1488, Irrigation Department is an industry. Seasonal Work (Not the contention in written statement & 25(oo)(bb). No document or evidence produced to show that the work is seasonal work no order from Government that the work is seasonal. No order for specific worker time was decided in issue.No.3 Judgment of Supreme Court in Case of Government of Gujarat (Fisheries Terminal Department) v. Bhikhubhai Meghjibhai Chavda reported in 2010(1)SCC 47 para 11 and 12. The respondents have not completed 240 days service. Workmen had filed application for production of document which were not produced & the Union was not supplied with the same when he had visited the office of the respondents. The workman deposed in witness box that he has completed 240 days, the same was not denied by the witness of the department. Witness Box that he has completed 240 days service, burden shifts on respondent to negative the case of workman In case of - Government of Gujarat (Fisheries Terminal Department) v. Bhikhubhai Meghjibhai Chavda reported in 2010(1)SCC 47 para:-15,16,17,18,19,20,21 observations of Labour Court at page no.34,35,36,37,- all documents are not produced by employer though they are in his possession, deposition of workmen is that they have completed 240 days - adverse inference-conclusion about 240 days service. As the workmen were engaged in seasonal work- no requirement to follow the provision of Sec.25(F) before their Termination. Violation of 25(f) deposition of workman that juniors are continue, name of the juniors are also given which is not denied by employer, no seniority list was produced. Violation of 25(g) also (labour Court's observation on page.38) cases relied:- Harjinder singh v. Punjab state warehousing corporation 2010(3)SCC 192 (violation of 25(f)-reinstatement) Annop Sharma v. Executive 6. The Court has noticed that while issuing Rule in these matters, the order of interim relief was made only against the continuity of service and backwages. Violation of 25(g) also (labour Court's observation on page.38) cases relied:- Harjinder singh v. Punjab state warehousing corporation 2010(3)SCC 192 (violation of 25(f)-reinstatement) Annop Sharma v. Executive 6. The Court has noticed that while issuing Rule in these matters, the order of interim relief was made only against the continuity of service and backwages. The reinstatement was not stayed and the Court reserved specific liberty to the workmen to bring in proceedings under Section 33(c)(2). 7. The order of interim relief and issuance of Rule has already been set out as a part of the written submission on behalf of the petitioners, which would clearly indicate that the reinstatement had never been stayed by the Court. The result of the interim order today is that all the workmen concerned are reinstated and they are discharging their duties on the respective places. 8. Before adverting to the rival contentions of the parties, it would be most appropriate to set out hereinbelow few indisputable aspects emerging from the proceedings so as to appreciate the real contention. (i) The workmen could be classified to be broadly into three categories namely; Labour, Watchmen and Gardner. (ii) In the statement of claim, workmen have in unequivocal terms claimed that the nature of duties which they performed was perennial and continuous. The employer organisation was required to have this sort of employees for the permanent nature of work. (iii) The workmen have claimed in the written statement that till the date of the termination they were continuously working and discharging their duties and in a given year they put in more than 240 days. (iv) The workmen have claimed in the written statement that the presence of the workmen were maintained in a register and in case if the workmen's claims were required to be agitated or controverted, then workmen called upon the employer to produce the muster roll before the Court, as part of their pleadings in the statement of claim itself. (v) The workmen claimed in the statement of claim that they were paid by preparing voucher and if there was any dispute qua that, then the employer were called upon to produce the same in the Court. (v) The workmen claimed in the statement of claim that they were paid by preparing voucher and if there was any dispute qua that, then the employer were called upon to produce the same in the Court. (vi) The workmen also claimed in the statement of claim that the wages which they used to receive were not equivalent to the permanent workmen, nor were they paid any monetary assistance which were otherwise admissible to the permanent employees and workmen. (vii) The inaction on the part of the concerned employer in not treating the workmen at par with the permanent employees caused workmen demanding those benefits persistently, which demands were made by the threat of discharging. (viii) The workmen have claimed in the statement of claim that workmen's legitimate demand for being treated at par with the permanent employees resulted into their unceremonious termination without following due procedure of law. (ix) The workmen relied upon decision of the Supreme Court in case of H.D. Singh v. Reserve Bank of India, reported in 1986 (2) LLJ 127 and also Chief Conservator of Forest v. Jagganath Bharti Kothere, reported in 1996 L.C.C. 500 and claimed that there was unfair labour practice, as narrated in Section 25-T of the I.D. Act. (x) The workmen also claimed that there was clear breach of provision of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the I.D. Act, this statement of claim came to be filed around the year 2001. (xi) The employer-present petitioner filed written statement controverting the case of the workmen in the statement of claim. This written statement was filed in the year 2003, inter alia contending that the workmen were daily wagers and were required to be engaged as and when their services were needed. (xii) It was further contended by the petitioner in the written statement that the workmen were engaged in distribution of canal water and they were engaged as rotation, as and when rotation was closed the work was not made available. (xiii) So far as muster roll is concerned, as they were running into volumes, the same were chosen not to produce. (xiv) The Labour Court after appreciating the evidences on record came to the conclusion that the documentary evidences were produced by both the sides which were taken into consideration, as could be seen from the narration in paragraph no.5 and internal page nos. 6 to 9 of the order. (xiv) The Labour Court after appreciating the evidences on record came to the conclusion that the documentary evidences were produced by both the sides which were taken into consideration, as could be seen from the narration in paragraph no.5 and internal page nos. 6 to 9 of the order. (xv) The Labour Court framed issues for determination, as under; (a) Whether the first party is 'industry' or not? (b) Whether the workmen were engaged for a particular work and after completion thereof their services came to an end automatically as per provision of Section 2(oo)(bb)? (c) Whether the second party workmen proved that they were retrenched? (d) Whether workmen proved that they completed continuous service as per Section 25-B of the I.D. Act? (e) Whether workmen proved that the termination was illegal? (f) Whether workmen are entitled to be reinstated? (g) Whether the second party is entitled to get any back wages? (h) What order? After answering those points, the reasoning starts, wherein the Court came to the conclusion that employer was an industry and covered under the provision of I.D. Act. The point number 2 and 3 have been discussed simultaneously and Court has held that the employer failed in proving that the entire incident attracted under Section 2(oo)(bb). The point number 4 is held to be in favour of the workmen, as proved by the workmen. The Court has also recorded that the truncated production of documents on the part of the employer did not help the case of the employer and ultimately Court recorded its conclusion relying upon decision, set out therein, for holding that the workmen were wrongfully terminated and they were entitled for reinstatement with 25% of backwages and continuity of service and the cost. 9. Against the aforesaid backdrop of almost indisputable aspects, this Court is called upon to examine the challenge to the judgment by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court, therefore, proposes to examine as to whether looking to the pleadings and prayers in the petitions, can these petitions be classified to be one filed under Article 226, as sought to be made out at bar. The Court, therefore, proposes to examine as to whether looking to the pleadings and prayers in the petitions, can these petitions be classified to be one filed under Article 226, as sought to be made out at bar. The Court is of the considered view that these petitions cannot be said to be a petition filed under Article 226, though the petitioners have invoked Article 226 alone, but in absence of specific pleadings, attracting provision of Article 226, the same cannot be pressed into service only with a view to enlarge the scope of examination. 10. The petitioners have not indicated anywhere as to how and in what manner, the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 is being invoked. The petitioners have no dispute qua either the jurisdiction or purport of the jurisdiction of the Court concerned whose orders are under challenge, nor the petitioners have any ground to indicate that there was any over stepping or jurisdiction or refusal to exercise of the jurisdiction. By merely praying writ of certiorari, the same cannot be said to be a ground for maintaining the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Had there been any ground, which could have been legitimately pressed into service for invoking Article 226 in the pleadings, then of course the same could have been examined. But in the present petitions, if one takes a close look of the entire pleadings, one would safely conclude that there exists none, so as to classified these petitions to have been filed under Article 226. Though in the cause title as well as in the prayer, the perfunctory narration of Article 226 and prayer for certiorari is made, but in my view that alone would not merit consideration for classifying these matters to be one filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. Having decided that these petitions cannot be said to have been filed under Article 226, as the petitioners have not established as to how and in what manner Article 226 is invokable. This Court is to examine the challenge to the award and order only as per the purview and purport, as if the petitions are filed under Article 227 alone. This Court is to examine the challenge to the award and order only as per the purview and purport, as if the petitions are filed under Article 227 alone. The Court, therefore, needs to bear in mind inherent limitations evolved over the years by the Supreme Court while examining the challenge to the judicial order brought to the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. The findings recorded by the Labour Court unequivocally go to establish that the workmen were continuously serving with the employer for all the years when their services came to be terminated. The factum of workmen being continuous in service has been established by the workmen, as finding to that effect is recorded. The petitioners have not indicated anywhere as to how and in what manner this finding could be classified to be perverse or not untenable. On the contrary, the evidences and its appreciation by the Court coupled with the truncated production of documentary evidences on the part of the employer would rather indicate that the said finding deserves to be confirmed, as it is based upon the evidences and its appreciation which this Court may not re-appreciate in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. The further finding recorded by the Court is in respect of non compliance of the provisions of Section 25- f and other provisions of the I.D. Act, namely; 25-g and 25-h, the Labour Court's discussion qua this finding also indicate that the Court has based upon these findings on appreciation of evidences to indicate that the employer failed in dislodging the established facts on the part of the workmen that they were continuously working and before bringing about termination of their services they were paid either the compensation for retrenchment, nor were they paid one month wages in lieu of the notice, nor notice or notice pay. All these factors have gone into only one direction, which was rightly pleaded on the part of the workmen that there was a breach of Section 25-f. As a result whereof, the Court thought it fit to order reinstatement keeping in view the number of service, which they have rendered. 14. All these factors have gone into only one direction, which was rightly pleaded on the part of the workmen that there was a breach of Section 25-f. As a result whereof, the Court thought it fit to order reinstatement keeping in view the number of service, which they have rendered. 14. So far as, back wages are concerned, the Court has recorded its finding, which in my view need not be now gone into at this stage, as the counsels have accepted the same so far as the workmen are concerned. 15. The Court was unable to agree with the submissions raised on behalf of the respondent that the workmen have failed in categorically calling upon the employer to produce documents. The burden cannot be said to have been discharged by the workmen, as the statement of claim categorically contained and the fact that the same has not been controverted, cannot be said to have been awarding further any efforts on the part of the workmen. Besides, Shri Pathak, at this stage has invited this Court's attention to Exhibit-43 under which there is a specific demand raised and granted by the Court for production of document and, therefore, this submission is of no avail to the petitioners. 16. The contention qua back wages is also sought to be pressed into service by inviting Court's attention pointedly to the findings recorded by the Court, wherein it has recorded that some of the workmen engaged in agricultural and labour activities. To this, learned advocate Shri Pathak, has submitted that the findings cannot be said to be indicative of gainful employment, as envisaged under I.D. Act, so as to deny complete back wages. Therefore, the Labour Court has appropriately curtail the quantum of back wages. 17. This Court has also unable to accept the submission made at the bar qua modification of the order, so far as, the back wages are concerned, as the back wages cannot be said to be granted without consideration of the relevant factors. The Court has appreciated the evidence of the workmen in which the workmen have said that they were not engaged anywhere gainfully. Though, on the part of the workmen or some of the workmen being engaged in agricultural activities without any further evidence on the part of the employer to establish that they were gainfully employed. The Court has appreciated the evidence of the workmen in which the workmen have said that they were not engaged anywhere gainfully. Though, on the part of the workmen or some of the workmen being engaged in agricultural activities without any further evidence on the part of the employer to establish that they were gainfully employed. The Labour Court was to examine the matter on its own and when the Labour Court has curtail as much as 75% of back wages, this Court is of the considered view that the same needs no interference in these proceedings. 18. The Court, therefore, is of the considered view that these petitions have been filed assailing the order of Labour Court and when examined the challenge under Article 227 or even for that matter under Article 226, the Court is of the considered view that the order has not resulted into any miscarriage of justice, nor are they in any manner illegal so as to call for any interference. The Court is of the view that the Labour Court has considered all the aspects and after taking them into consideration passed the order, which cannot be said to have resulted into any perversity so as to call for any interference. The petitions being meritless, deserve dismissal and are accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged in each matter. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated in each matter. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 19. In view of the orders passed in this group of matters, no order in present Civil Application. Office is directed to keep copy of this order in each matter. Writ Petitions dismissed.