JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Barot, learned AGP for the petitioner - State. The cause list reflects that the respondents are served. 2. In this group of petitions, separate/similar awards passed by learned Labour Court, Anand in Reference (LCA) No. 66 of 1996 and other similar reference cases filed by similarly placed claimants are challenged by the Deputy Executive Engineer, Borsad Irrigation Sub-Division. 2.1 By the awards impugned in this group of petitions, the learned Labour Court has directed the petitioner to reinstate the original claimants i.e. present respondents in service on their original post with continuity of service and 25% backwages. With the said direction, learned Labour Court has partly allowed the reference cases. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said awards. 3. Before proceeding further, it is relevant and necessary to mention, at the outset, that while admitting this group of petitions, vide order dated 14.3.2012, the Court, by way of ad-interim relief, stayed the operation of the direction granting backwages and continuity of service, however, the Court did not grant even ad-interim relief so far as direction to reinstate the concerned claimants is concerned. On the contrary, the Court directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondents - claimants within period of 3 weeks. The said order dated 14.3.2012 reads thus:- "Rule. Ad-interim relief qua backwages and continuity of service is granted on condition that the respondents workmen shall be reinstated in service within a period of three weeks from today. Issue Notice as to confirmation of interim relief returnable on 11.04.2012." 4. Subsequently, the learned advocate for the respondents - claimants declared before the Court that the petitioner has complied the orders/direction granted vide order dated 14.3.2012 and thereby, the petitioner has reinstated the respondents - claimants. 4.1 The said statement and declaration by the learned advocate for the respondents - claimants is recorded by the Court vide order dated 20.4.2012, which reads thus:- "Heard Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned AGP for the petitioner and Mr. Nikhil Joshi, learned advocate for the respondent workman. By an order dated 14.3.2012, this Court (Coram: K.S. Jhaveri, J.) has admitted the matter and granted ad-interim relief qua continuity of service and back wages on condition that the petitioner will reinstate the respondent workman before the returnable date. Mr. Shruti Pathak, learned AGP for the petitioner and Mr. Nikhil Joshi, learned advocate for the respondent workman. By an order dated 14.3.2012, this Court (Coram: K.S. Jhaveri, J.) has admitted the matter and granted ad-interim relief qua continuity of service and back wages on condition that the petitioner will reinstate the respondent workman before the returnable date. Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the respondent workman states that the condition enshrined in the order dated 14.3.2012 has been complied with by the petitioner and the respondent workman has been reinstated. Hence, the ad-interim relief granted by order dated 14.3.2012 is confirmed and the said ad-interim relief shall continue till final disposal of this petition." 5. Today, at the time of hearing of this group of petitions, Mr. Barot, learned AGP for the petitioner, again submitted and clarified that the respondents have been reinstated and they are working with the petitioner. Thus, now, almost 4 years have passed since the respondents - claimants are working with the petitioner pursuant to the awards and the order dated 14.3.2012 passed by this Court. 5.1 The challenge against the impugned awards is, therefore, required to be examined in light of above mentioned subsequent developments. 6. So far as factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record of this group of petitions that the respondents - claimants, somewhere in 1995 raised industrial dispute on the allegation that the employer illegally and arbitrarily terminated their services w.e.f. 1.6.1990 by oral orders. The appropriate government considered the dispute and referred the said dispute for adjudication vide orders of reference passed in November 1995. The said orders of reference came to be registered as Reference (LCA) No. 66 of 1996 and other connected reference cases. 6.1 Before the learned Labour Court, the claimants filed their respective statement of claims and they alleged that they were appointed by the office of the opponent in January/February 1985 and since then, they were continuously working with the office of the opponent and they were paid wages at the rate of Rs. 22.50 per day. The claimants accepted that they were appointed as and working as daily wagers, however, they alleged that they had worked for more than 240 days. 22.50 per day. The claimants accepted that they were appointed as and working as daily wagers, however, they alleged that they had worked for more than 240 days. The claimants also alleged that they were posted at various sub canals/minor canals which were part and parcel of Borsad Irrigation Sub-Division and under the authority of the Deputy Executive Engineer, Borsad Irrigation Sub-Division. The claimants also alleged that they were assigned the work of filling mud, cutting bushes, civil construction, pitching, etc. It was also alleged by the claimants that their appointment and attendance were treated on muster roll by one Mr. Gamit who was subsequently transferred and in his place one Mr. S.C. Rana was posted and one Mr. Venubhai Barot substituted said Mr. Rana. The claimants also alleged that the concerned officers used to pay wages at less than minimum rates and other benefits like provident fund, leave, gratuity, etc. were denied to them. The claimants also alleged that since legally available benefits were not granted to them, they used to raise claim before the concerned officer and that therefore, the officers nurtured grudge against the claimants and they were victimized. The claimants also alleged that on 1.6.1990 the respondent terminated their services abruptly, arbitrarily and without following any procedure prescribed by law. The claimants alleged that after they were discontinued on and from 1.6.1990, they used to report for work and the officer in-charge used to assure them that they will be re-engaged after sometime. The claimants also alleged that subsequently, the respondent started engaging other persons and that therefore, they lost trust in the concerned officer and raised industrial dispute. It was alleged by the claimants that they had issued notice dated 17.8.1995 and served it at the office of the opponent/Deputy Executive Engineer, who did not give any reply nor called them for work. 6.2 The petitioner herein i.e. original opponent opposed the reference cases by filing written statement. However, before present petitioner filed their written statement, the claimants sought permission to amend the statement of claims which was granted by the Court and actually, the claimants had amended the statement of claim and thereafter, the opponent - present petitioner had tendered its reply in response to the statement of claims filed by the claimants. However, before present petitioner filed their written statement, the claimants sought permission to amend the statement of claims which was granted by the Court and actually, the claimants had amended the statement of claim and thereafter, the opponent - present petitioner had tendered its reply in response to the statement of claims filed by the claimants. The original opponent claimed in its written statement that the claimants were engaged only on ad-hoc and temporary basis for casual work and that their engagement was on temporary basis. The opponent also claimed that the claimants were engaged without following any procedure for selection and recruitment and that their names were not sponsored by Employment Exchange. It was also claimed that the claimants were engaged intermittently and the claimants had, after sometime, voluntarily stopped reporting for work. The opponent also claimed that it had made the payment for the days for which the claimants had worked and the claimants were, on their own volition, not reporting for duty. 6.3 At the stage of evidence, some of the claimants filed affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief and they were subjected to cross-examination. For the opponent i.e. present petitioner one Mr. H.T. Rawal was examined as witness. An affidavit in lieu of cross examination was filed by said Mr. H.T. Rawal which was accepted on record at exh. 34. It appears that, subsequently, the opponent i.e. present petitioner filed application exh. 35 and declared that the deposition recorded in Reference No. 57 of 1996 may be treated as evidence for all reference cases so far as the opponent is concerned. With the said declaration under purshis exh. 35, the opponent closed its stage of evidence. 6.4 Thereafter learned Labour Court considered the material available on record and submissions by learned advocate for the claimants and learned advocate for the opponent i.e. present petitioner and reached to the conclusion that the concerned claimants were working with the opponent since 1986 and some of the claimants were employed w.e.f. 1988. Learned Labour Court also reached to the conclusion that after relieving the claimants the petitioner had engaged other persons/employees for performing same duty and thereby petitioner had committed breach of Section 25F. 7. Mr. Learned Labour Court also reached to the conclusion that after relieving the claimants the petitioner had engaged other persons/employees for performing same duty and thereby petitioner had committed breach of Section 25F. 7. Mr. Barot, learned AGP assailed the impugned award and submitted that the learned Labour Court failed to take into account that the claimants had raised dispute after 5 years and that further delay was caused by the claimants in filing their statement of claim, which caused further delay in the proceeding and conclusion of the reference cases. In light of the said details learned AGP submitted that the direction to grant continuity of service and 25% backwages are unjustified. Learned AGP further submitted that the claimants failed to establish that they had worked for 240 days in every year and that therefore the conclusion that the petitioner had committed breach under Section 25F of the Act is incorrect and unjustified. On the said ground the learned AGP challenged the award. 7.1 As mentioned earlier the cause list reflects remark that the respondents are served. At the time of hearing no one is present for the respondent however, considering the fact that the petitions are pending since 2012 and any request for pass over or adjournment is not made, the Court deemed it proper to hear and decide the petitions on merits instead of adjourning the cases. Therefore, the Court has taken into account the details and facts stated by the claimants in their statement of claim and the contentions raised before learned Labour Court, facts recorded in the award as well as material on record of present petitions. 8. So far as the respondents are concerned it has emerged from the record and from the submissions by learned advocate for the claimants that the claimants asserted that they had worked for 240 days and suddenly after discontinuing their service w.e.f. 1.6.1990 the petitioner had engaged other persons/employees. The claimants also claimed that at the time when their services were discontinued the petitioner had not paid retrenchment compensation and when other persons were engaged they were not called for work. The claimants also asserted that before terminating their service any notice was not served nor any inquiry was conducted nor retrenchment compensation was paid. The respondents supported the award and claimed that the award and direction do not warrant any interference. The claimants also asserted that before terminating their service any notice was not served nor any inquiry was conducted nor retrenchment compensation was paid. The respondents supported the award and claimed that the award and direction do not warrant any interference. 8.1 However, the respondent could not offer any explanation or justification with regard to the delay caused in raising the dispute and subsequent delay caused in filing statement of claim. Likewise, except contending that there is no error in respect of direction with regard to backwages, any justification for award of 25% backwages and that too in face of such delay is not made out by the respondents-claimants. 9. I have considered the rival submissions and contentions. 10. As mentioned hereinabove pursuant to the award and the order passed by the Court while admitting the petitions, the respondents are reinstated. 10.1 The respondents had urged before the learned Labour Court that they were appointed in or around 1985 and they were paid salary @ Rs. 22.50 and their services came to be terminated in 1990. They also claimed that they had worked for 240 days in the office of Deputy Executive Engineer, Borsad. 10.2 On the other hand the petitioner had claimed that the respondents had voluntarily stopped reporting for duty. 10.3 The learned Labour Court, after appreciating evidence on record, reached to the conclusion and recorded findings of fact that the claimants had worked for 240 days. The learned Labour Court did not accept and the learned Labour Court rejected the petitioner's case that the respondent had voluntarily stopped reporting for work. Learned Labour Court also took into account the details which emerged from Joint Inspection Statement and from the said document learned Labour Court found that the petitioner had extended benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. The learned Labour Court also found that after the services of the respondents were discontinued the petitioner had engaged other persons and even at the time when the respondents were discontinued the persons junior to them were continued in service. After recording such findings of fact learned Labour Court reached to the conclusion that the petitioner had committed breach of Section 25G and subsequently it also committed breach of Section 25H. Having reached to and after having recorded such findings of fact, learned Labour Court considered it appropriate to pass order directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondents. After recording such findings of fact learned Labour Court reached to the conclusion that the petitioner had committed breach of Section 25G and subsequently it also committed breach of Section 25H. Having reached to and after having recorded such findings of fact, learned Labour Court considered it appropriate to pass order directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondents. 10.4 The foregoing discussion bring out that the observations and conclusions recorded by the learned Labour Court are based on material on record and therefore said findings do not warrant any interference. Since the learned Labour Court has reached to the conclusion that the petitioner had committed breach of Section 25G of the ID Act, the direction to reinstate the respondents cannot be faulted. 10.5 Besides this, in view of the fact that the petitioner has already reinstated the respondents and that since last about 4 years they are working with the petitioner, even otherwise there is no justification to interfere with the order directing reinstatement of the respondents. 10.6 For the aforesaid reasons this Court is not inclined to interfere with the learned Labour Court's award directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondents. 11. As mentioned earlier there is no dispute as to the fact that the claimants raised dispute after delay of almost 5 years and thereafter the claimants caused further delay in filing statement of claim and the said delay was extended when the claimants also prayed for permission to amend the statement of claim which was granted by the learned Labour Court. 11.1 Having regard to the said undisputed facts and also having regard to the fact that the proceedings continued for more than 12 years before the learned Labour Court, the order granting continuity of service cannot be sustained more particularly in view of the undisputed fact that the claimants were engaged without following any procedure for selection and recruitment and by ignoring fact that their names were not even sponsored by the employment exchange. The said order of the continuity of service is also not justified in view of the fact that the concerned persons were engaged on ad hoc and daily wage basis. 11.2 In the result the order granting continuity in service and directing the petitioner to treat the claimants in continuous service is set aside. The said order of the continuity of service is also not justified in view of the fact that the concerned persons were engaged on ad hoc and daily wage basis. 11.2 In the result the order granting continuity in service and directing the petitioner to treat the claimants in continuous service is set aside. 11.3 So far as the order directing payment of 25% backwages is concerned, in light of the facts and circumstances of the case which are discussed hereinabove, it has emerged that the said order is passed without taking into consideration that the claimants had raised dispute after delay and during the interregnum while the reference proceedings were pending before learned Labour Court the claimants would not have remained unemployed for such long period of about 15 years. 11.4 Besides this, in view of the fact that the claimants were engaged without following procedure of selection and recruitment and on ad hoc basis, the direction awarding backwages at 25% is unjustified. 11.5 In the facts and circumstances of the case the Court is of the view that interest of justice will be served if the order granting 25% is set aside and the petitioner is directed to pay lump sum compensation in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- to each of the claimants. 12. In light of the foregoing discussion and for the aforesaid reasons following order is passed. The order directing the petitioner to reinstate the concerned claimants is not disturbed. On this count it is relevant to note that the petitioner has already reinstated the concerned claimants therefore, even otherwise grievance against said direction does not survive. So far as the order directing the petitioner to grant continuity of service is concerned the said directions is not sustainable and therefore the said direction is set aside. So far as order directing payment of 25% backwages is concerned, it is set aside and modified and instead the petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to each claimants by way of lump sum compensation. Accordingly the petitions are partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent in each of the petition. Orders accordingly.