JUDGMENT : S.R. Brahmbhatt, J. By way of this petition, petitioners have approached this Court with following prayers; That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction- A. Declaring that the action of terminating their services vide order dated 4th April, 2003 at Annexure - I is completely, unjust, improper, discriminatory, in violation of Articles - 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the directive principles of the Constitution of India and in violation of seniority, in violation of statutory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 like Section 25-F and G of the ID Act, and therefore also the action of termination is null and void ab initio and no procedure whatsoever has been followed as prescribed by law, and therefore, in violation of this Hon'ble Court's Order dated 18th October, 2002 at Annexure-II and therefore, the action of termination of the petitioners' service is a contemptuous action by the respondents and they are liable to be punished for the same, and therefore, also, the action terminating the services of the petitioners is unjust, improper, illegal, unconstitutional and void ab initio. B. Declaring that the action of terminating the petitioners' service by respondent No.1 is completely unjust, improper, illegal, unconstitutional and void ab initio, and therefore, the petitioners herein are entitled to reinstatement in the services of the respondent No.1 Panchayat with full back wages and allowances and all other benefits and with continuity of service as if the petitioners' services were not terminated. C. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate all the petitioners with full back wages, allowances and all other benefits and with continuity of service. D. Direct the respondents to pay 12% interest on the back wages to be paid to the petitioners as if on each and every month wages/salary is payable to them, has become due on completion of each month, till the date all the back wages due and payable are paid to the petitioners. E. Pending admission and/or final disposal of this writ petition, this Hon'ble Court will be pleased to direct the Respondents, by way of interim order/interim relief, to reinstate all the petitioners immediately and/or to pay the wages to all the petitioners every month as before, as if their services were not terminated. E. Pending admission and/or final disposal of this writ petition, this Hon'ble Court will be pleased to direct the Respondents, by way of interim order/interim relief, to reinstate all the petitioners immediately and/or to pay the wages to all the petitioners every month as before, as if their services were not terminated. Thus, what is essentially under challenge is the termination order dated 04.04.2003 on the ground that the same is in violation of Section 25-F and G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "I.D. Act" for the sake of brevity). 2. Facts in brief, leading to filing this petition, as could be culled out from the memo of petition, deserves to be set out as under; 2.1 All the petitioners in the present petition have joined the employment/services of Kosamba Gram Panchayat on fixed monthly wages and they have worked continuously till their services were terminated on 4th April 2003. Their total service periods were between 13 to 23 years, when they were terminated. The Government has taken a policy decision that due to the abolition of octroi services of the employees working in the local self Government establishments shall not be terminated and the same is communicated to the concerned establishments on different occasions and also decision to the effect that matching grant/subsidy will be given by the Government to the respective self-Government establishments. 2.2 All the petitioners herein and four other employees have filed petition before this Court being S.C.A. No.3730 of 2001 apprehending termination of their services and by disposing of the same this Court on 18th October, 2002 directed the respondent authorities not to terminate the petitioners' services without following the procedure prescribed by law. All the petitioners were served with an identical show cause notice issued by the Gram Panchayat on 08.01.2003 and the reply was filed by them on 18.01.2003 against the same. The respondent Panchayat has issued termination orders to all the petitioners on 04.04.2003. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with this, the petitioners have filed this petition for the grounds mentioned in the petition. 3. The plain plank of the submission on behalf of the petitioners was that in light of the order dated 18.10.2002 passed by this Court in S.C.A. No.3730 of 2001, their services could not be terminated by the respondent. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with this, the petitioners have filed this petition for the grounds mentioned in the petition. 3. The plain plank of the submission on behalf of the petitioners was that in light of the order dated 18.10.2002 passed by this Court in S.C.A. No.3730 of 2001, their services could not be terminated by the respondent. 4. The petitioners had also contended that they had put in many years of services and, therefore, they could not have been unceremoniously discharged without following due procedure of law especially Section 25-F and G of the I.D. Act. 5. The petitioners have claimed that they were employed regularly and, therefore, on account of abolition of Octori, if the others were offered alternative employment, they also ought to have been offered other employment. 6. The respondents have urged that the petitioners had never been appointed after following due procedure of law. In fact, it was contended on behalf of the respondents that the Gram Panchayat never have had any authority to make appointment of the persons like petitioners. 7. It was also submitted by the respondents that on account of abolition of Octroi, the notice was issued and the petitioners were given opportunity to show cause and thereafter their services were terminated. In that view of the matter, the question of not following due procedure of law is not arise and, therefore, the order impugned deserve to be upheld. 8. It was submitted by the respondents that the petitioners have been appointed without passing resolution in the meeting of the Panchayat and their appointments are illegal and back door entries and they performed the duty to collect octori and no other work have been assigned to them. The petitioners were given show cause notice and have been paid one month's salary towards one month notice pay and thereafter the services have been terminated, which is legal and valid with full competence of the order passed by this Court on 18.10.2002. 9. It was submitted by the respondents that the petitioners have raised an Industrial Dispute relying on Section 25-F and G of the I.D. Act, but best forum for such type of dispute is Labour Court. It was further submitted by the respondents that as per the Government resolution dated 30.03.2002, the Panchayat has to use the Octroi grant payable by the Government for the purpose of the development work. It was further submitted by the respondents that as per the Government resolution dated 30.03.2002, the Panchayat has to use the Octroi grant payable by the Government for the purpose of the development work. The Government was not paying any amount towards the salary of the octroi staff on abolition of octroi, the octroi clerks have become surplus. The Panchayat has no any other department in which the surplus staff can be absorbed. Out of Rs.1.81 lac octroi grant, the Panchayat has to pay about Rs.50000/- per month towards the past debt of the Taluka Panchayat and the district Panchayat and it gets only Rs.1,30,000/- towards the octroi grant and therefore, the Panchayat cannot afford to pay Rs.100000/- towards the surplus staff. Looking to the huge financial liabilities of the Panchayat, the Panchayat was required to reduce the surplus staff. It was further submitted that no junior from the petitioners working in the department of octroi, have been retained in service. 10. It was further submitted that petitioners were not appointed according to the rules & regulation made under section 203 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1961 and therefore, petitioners are not entitled to get any relief and hence the petition deserves to be dismissed. 11. The following authorities were relied by the respondents, which are reproduced herein below; (i) In case of Arjunbhai J.Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1997 (3) GLR 2461 ; (ii) In case of Premjibhai L.Gamit v. Executive Engineer, (Panchayat) R&B Division II Surat & Anr., reported in 1998(3)GLR 2550; (iii) In case of Nilesh Bhatt & Ors. v. Administrative Officer, Nagar Pradhamik Shikshan Samiti & Ors., reported in 1996(1)GLH 108; (iv) in case of D.D. Upadhyaya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 1998 (3) GLR 2264 ; (v) In case of Shivshanker S. Pathak v. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 1997 (1) G.L.H. 568 . 12. This Court is of the view that this petition is required to be dismissed for the following reasons namely; (i) The petitioners could not established that they were originally employed after following due procedure of law. The reply given by the petitioners to the show cause notice indicate that the factum of non-compliance of rules for appointment has not been even controverted by the petitioners. The petitioners, in fact, banked of their employment only. Therefore, they cannot succeed in this petition. The reply given by the petitioners to the show cause notice indicate that the factum of non-compliance of rules for appointment has not been even controverted by the petitioners. The petitioners, in fact, banked of their employment only. Therefore, they cannot succeed in this petition. (ii) The petitioners cannot claim to establish violation of Section 25-F and G as they have claimed in this petition. In absence of any cogent reason on their part, this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, could not have been called upon to go into this aspect, as it is a subject matter of evidence to be adduced. (iii) The factum of issuance of notice indicate that the petitioners were given an opportunity of being heard and the petitioners could not show any reason for dropping the notice. (iv) The Court is of the considered view that there could be some substance in the submission qua violation of Section 25-F, but that, as it is observed herein above, is a subject matter of consideration at the appropriate forum. The High Court is not being appropriate forum for adjudication in absence of any evidence, the same cannot be entertained, at this stage. 13. As a result, petition being bereft of merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. Writ Petition dismissed.