JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Thakkar, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the respondent. 2. In present petition, the petitioner has challenged award dated 9.7.2012 passed by the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No. 715 of 2007 whereby the learned Labour Court directed the petitioner company to reinstate the concerned workman and pay 20% back-wages. 3. So far the factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record that the respondent herein raised industrial dispute on the ground that his service is illegally terminated. The appropriate government referred the dispute for adjudication. The dispute was registered as Reference (LCA) No. 715 of 2007. 3.1 During the proceedings before the learned Labour Court, the claimant filed statement of claim with the allegations that he was working with the petitioner company since 1989 as security guard and that at the relevant time, his salary was Rs. 2,250/-. He also alleged that his service was illegally terminated by oral order on 1.12.2006 and that before his such illegal termination, he had worked continuously with the company for more than 240 days and that despite such facts, he was discontinued without granting any opportunity of hearing, without any fault on his part and without payment of notice pay or retrenchment compensation. 3.2 With such allegations, the claimant demanded that he should be reinstated with consequential benefits. 3.3 The demand by the workman was opposed by the petitioner company. The petitioner filed written statement and denied the allegations. The petitioner claimed that the contract with the company whereby the claimant was deployed came to an end and the claimant was made to understand that he will be informed the details about the other point where he should report for work and that despite such instruction the claimant stopped reporting for work. It was also claimed that the company had not terminated the service of the claimant and that therefore, his demand for reinstatement and/or for back-wages is not justified. 3.4 During the proceedings before the learned Labour Court, both sides led evidence. Upon conclusion of the stage of evidence, the learned Labour Court heard the submissions by learned counsel for the claimant and the employer company and after considering the material on record, the learned Labour Court reached to the conclusion that the claimant's service was terminated illegally. 3.4 During the proceedings before the learned Labour Court, both sides led evidence. Upon conclusion of the stage of evidence, the learned Labour Court heard the submissions by learned counsel for the claimant and the employer company and after considering the material on record, the learned Labour Court reached to the conclusion that the claimant's service was terminated illegally. Having reached such conclusion, the learned Labour Court passed the award dated 9.7.2012 with aforesaid directions, which are impugned in present petition. 4. Mr. Thakkar, learned advocate for the petitioner company, submitted that the company had not terminated the respondent. He submitted that at the relevant time, the company had entered into a contract with the Arvind mills for providing security guards and in pursuance of the said contract, the claimant was deployed at Arvind mills and was posted at the go-down and when the period of the contract came to an end, the company was informed that the contract is not continued/extended and that therefore, the workman was informed that the details about the next point (where he would be deployed) will be intimated to him, however, the claimant did not report for duty and instead, he raised dispute which is unjustified and the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned award without appreciating the said facts. 5. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the respondent workman, vehemently disputed the submissions by the petitioner and claimed that the respondent's service was orally terminated on 1.12.2006. He submitted that despite the fact that the respondent had worked for 18 years with the petitioner company, his service came to be arbitrarily terminated without following procedure prescribed by law and the learned Labour Court has reached to specific finding of fact that before terminating the respondent's service, any procedure was not followed. 6. I have considered the submissions by learned counsel for the petitioner company and the respondent workman and I have also considered the material on record. 7. At the outset, it is relevant to mention that according to the submission by learned advocate for the petitioner company, the concerned claimant i.e. the respondent has attained age of superannuation. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the respondent workman, also did not dispute the said statement and submission and confirmed that the claimant - workman has attained age of superannuation. Therefore, now, the question of implementing the direction to reinstate the workman does not survive. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the respondent workman, also did not dispute the said statement and submission and confirmed that the claimant - workman has attained age of superannuation. Therefore, now, the question of implementing the direction to reinstate the workman does not survive. 8. The dispute is with regard to respondent's termination from service. According to the respondent's allegation, his service was terminated by oral order on 1.12.2006. 8.1 It is pertinent that there is no dispute with regard to the date from which the respondent's service came to an end. The only defence is with regard to the workman's claim that his service was terminated whereas the company claims that the workman stopped reporting for duty. 8.2 There is nothing on record to suggest that before raising such contention in its written statement before the learned Labour Court, the petitioner had ever claimed that the respondent had stopped reporting for work. Any intimation from the company to the workman asking him to resume duties or calling for his explanation as to why he was remaining absent without permission or informing him that if he does not resume his duties, then, his said conduct will be treated as misconduct and that because of such conduct his service may be terminated, was never issued/served to the workman. Not even a single intimation was given by the petitioner to the respondent, until the company filed the reply/written statement in response to the workman's dispute and allegations in the reference case. 9. On the other hand, the company claims that as on 1.12.2006, the contract with Arvind mills where the workman was deployed came to an end and that therefore, the workman was informed that next point for his duty will be intimated to him. 9.1 It is pertinent to note that the company did not place on record copy of the contract which according to its claim, expired on 1.12.2006. It is not even the case of the petitioner company that on the next date or on the same day, the company had informed the claimant the next point of duty where the workman was to be deployed and where he was expected to report for duty from next day. It is not even the case of the petitioner company that on the next date or on the same day, the company had informed the claimant the next point of duty where the workman was to be deployed and where he was expected to report for duty from next day. 9.2 When the workman is not informed the next duty point (where he was expected to report for duty from the next date) then, any fault cannot be found with the claimant. There is no evidence on record to even suggest that the claimant had voluntarily abandoned the duty. 9.3 The learned Labour Court has examined the evidence on record and reached to the conclusion that the service of the workman was terminated. 9.4 It is also pertinent to note that before 1.12.2006, the claimant had worked with the petitioner company for almost 18 years. 9.5 During the proceedings before the learned Labour Court, the company had not raised any dispute with regard to the length of service of the claimant and/or it was also not claimed that during preceding 12 months, the claimant had not worked for 240 days. 9.6 Thus, it was undisputed fact that the claimant fulfilled both the conditions required for attracting and applying Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 9.7 It is not in dispute that the respondent's service was not terminated on account of misconduct. It is also not in dispute that any departmental inquiry was not conducted against the respondent for any misconduct and any disciplinary action was not taken against him. 9.8 It is also not in dispute that the company had not paid retrenchment compensation to the workman. The company's claim that the workman had stopped reporting for work is not believed and not accepted by the learned Labour Court and the petitioner has failed to make out any case against the said decision by learned Court. In light of the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of conspicuous absence of relevant and cogent evidence, the conclusion and the decision by the learned Labour Court cannot be faulted. 10. It is pertinent that in light of the facts of present case, the only question which arose before the learned Labour Court was that whether the claimant's service was terminated by oral order dated 1.12.2006 or the workman had stopped reporting for duty. 10. It is pertinent that in light of the facts of present case, the only question which arose before the learned Labour Court was that whether the claimant's service was terminated by oral order dated 1.12.2006 or the workman had stopped reporting for duty. 10.1 In this context, the workman categorically stated in his deposition that Mr. Mehboob Singh had not informed him the details of next duty point and he was never informed that from 1.2.2006 or 2.2.2006 he had to report for work at some other duty point. 10.2 On the other hand, the petitioner company failed to establish that any specific intimation with exact details about the next duty point where the respondent had to report, was conveyed to the respondent. 10.3 In this background, it appears that the learned Labour Court has not committed any error in holding that without informing the details about the next duty point, the petitioner was discontinued from service w.e.f. 1.12.2006 without following any procedure prescribed by law. 10.4 In this factual background, the learned Labour Court has recorded specific findings of fact against the company. The petitioner has failed to show any material from the record which could establish that the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court are incorrect or unjustified or that the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court are contrary to record or perverse. 10.5 The petitioner has failed to establish that the details about the next duty point were informed to the respondent, however, he did not report for duty at such other place. 11. In this view of the matter, there is no reason or justification and/or any evidence to take view different from the decision by the learned Labour Court and/or to interfere with the directions and the award. The petition, therefore, fails and deserves to be rejected and is, accordingly, rejected. Rule is discharged.