JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. Upadyay, learned advocate for the respondent in Special Civil Application No. 19363 of 2006. So far as Special Civil Application No. 19365 of 2006 is concerned, the cause list reflects that the process of Rule is served to the respondent, however, no one has entered appearance. 2. In Special Civil Application No. 19363 of 2006, the petitioner board has challenged the award dated 31.3.2006 passed by the learned Labour Court, Palanpur in Reference (LCP) No. 156 of 1996 [old Reference (LCA) No. 1970 of 1989]. Whereas in Special Civil Application No. 19365 of 2006, the award which is brought under challenge is dated 31.3.2006 passed by the learned Labour Court, Palanpur in Reference (LCP) No. 154 of 1996 [old Reference (LCA) No. 1965 of 1989]. By the impugned awards, the learned Labour Court has directed the petitioner board to reinstate the respondent workmen on their original post, however, the request for backwages and other consequential benefits is denied. 2.1 Aggrieved by the said direction to reinstate the respondent workmen without backwages and other benefits, the petitioner board has taken out these two petitions. 3. At the outset, Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. Upadhayay, learned advocate for the respondent in Special Civil Application No. 19363 of 2006, jointly submitted that the facts and circumstances involved in both the cases are identical. It is given out by learned advocates that the respondents in both the cases were engaged as delivery boy by the petitioner board. According to the case of the concerned respondents, their service were illegally and arbitrarily terminated w.e.f. 29.7.1989 and aggrieved by such illegal and arbitrary termination of service, the concerned respondents raised industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the learned Labour Court at Palanpur. It is further jointly submitted by Mr. Munshaw and Mr. Upadhayay, learned advocates, that alongwith these two cases, there was third case where the dispute was raised by one Mr. A.D. Mir and in his case, the dispute was referred by way of Reference (LCP) No. 157 of 1996 to the learned Labour Court, Palanpur and the learned Labour Court decided the said reference vide award dated 1.4.2006. According to learned advocates, in the said third case also the learned Labour Court had passed similar direction and had granted similar relief. 4. According to learned advocates, in the said third case also the learned Labour Court had passed similar direction and had granted similar relief. 4. It is also submitted by learned advocates that in the said third case, i.e. with reference to Reference No. 157 of 1996 decided by learned Labour Court vide award dated 1.4.2006, the petitioner board had filed writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 19366 of 2006 and the said petition came to be rejected vide judgment dated 12.6.2015. Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the petitioner board, fairly submitted that the facts and circumstances of these two cases are similar and identical to the case decided vide judgment dated 12.6.2015 in Special Civil Application No. 19366 of 2006. He also fairly submitted that in view of the fact that the facts and circumstances involved in these two cases and the decided case are similar and identical and the learned Labour Court has also passed similar direction and granted identical relief in all cases, these two cases also may be disposed of in light of and on the basis of the judgment dated 12.6.2015 in Special Civil Application No. 19366 of 2006. 5. Therefore, these two cases are decided in light of the judgment dated 12.6.2015 in Special Civil Application No. 19366 of 2006. 6. In the said cases, i.e. in respect of Special Civil Application No. 19366 of 2006, the Court took into account following facts:-- "2.0. That the respondent workman raised an industrial dispute challenging the illegal termination w.e.f. 29.7.1989 before the Labour Court which was referred to Labour Court, Palanpur, which was numbered as Reference (LCA) No. 1968 of 1989. However, thereafter the same was re-numbered as Reference (LCP) No. 157 of 1996. It was the case on behalf of the workman that he was serving as delivery boy since 15.3.1983 continuously and that he completed more than 240 days in the last preceding and his services came to be terminated abruptly and without following any due procedure as required under the provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on and from 29.07.1989. It was also the case on behalf of the workman that he had written number of letters to the petitioner, however he was not permitted to resume the duty. Therefore, it was requested to allow the reference and reinstating with full back wages. 2.1. It was also the case on behalf of the workman that he had written number of letters to the petitioner, however he was not permitted to resume the duty. Therefore, it was requested to allow the reference and reinstating with full back wages. 2.1. That a reply to the statement of claim was filed on behalf of the petitioner submitting that as such workman had voluntarily left the services on 20.07.1989. That it was submitted that as the workman abandoned the service voluntarily and therefore, no question of following any procedure under Section25 F of the Act. 2.2. That the workman came to be examined on oath. He was also cross examined by the learned advocate for the petitioner. On behalf of the petitioner, one Mamlatdar came to be examined, who had no personal knowledge at the time when the workman was terminated. 2.3. That on appreciation of evidence, Labour Court found that in the last preceding year the workman had worked for not less than 240 days. On appreciation of evidence, learned Labour Court did not accept the case on behalf of the petitioner that the workman had abandoned the work and / or he had voluntarily left the job. Consequently, the learned Labour Court has held that breach of Section 25 F of the Act and therefore, his termination dated 29.07.1989 is illegal and in breach of Section 25 F of the Act. However, considering the fact that the respondent workman was serving as Rojamdar and his appointment was not on permanent basis and / or sanctioned setup and therefore, the learned Labour Court has denied the back wages and by impugned judgment and award has directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent workman on his original post i.e. Rojamdar, however without any back wages. 2.4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court, the petitioner has preferred present Special Civil Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India." 7. 2.4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court, the petitioner has preferred present Special Civil Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India." 7. In present case also, it has emerged that the concerned respondent workmen were working as delivery boy and their service was terminated w.e.f. 29.7.1989 and in their statement of claims filed in respective references, they claimed that they worked with the petitioner board continuously for more than 12 months, i.e. the concerned claimant in Reference No. 156 of 1996 worked from 5.5.1986 to 29.7.1989, whereas the concerned workman in Reference No. 154 of 1996 worked continuously from 1.8.1984 to 29.7.1989 and during period of preceeding 12 months, they had worked for more than 240 days. Both the concerned workmen also alleged that their service was terminated without conducting any inquiry or without payment of retrenchment compensation or without following any procedure prescribed by law. Similar case was urged by the concerned workmen in Special Civil Application No. 19366 of 2006. Like the workmen in the decided case, these two workmen also claimed that their service was terminated in violation of Section 25F of the Act. In the decided petition where the award in Reference No. 157 of 1996 was considered, the learned Labour Court reached to the conclusion that the termination of the concerned workmen was effected in breach of Section 25F of the Act. Similar conclusions are recorded by the learned Labour Court in case of these two workmen also. 8. After examining the award dated 1.4.2006 in Reference No. 157 of 1996, this Court observed and held that:-- "5.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that on appreciation of evidence the learned Labour Court has specifically held that the termination of the respondent workman is illegal and in breach of Section 25 F of the Act. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Labour Court has held that in the last preceding year the respondent workman had worked for not less than 240 days and therefore, there is breach of Section 25 F of the Act. It is required to be noted that in the deposition of the officer of the petitioner, he had never disputed that respondent workman had not worked for 240 days in the last preceding year. It is required to be noted that in the deposition of the officer of the petitioner, he had never disputed that respondent workman had not worked for 240 days in the last preceding year. It is submitted that even in the cross examination of the deposition, no such question was asked to the respondent workman. It is required to be noted that even in the deposition, it was never the specific case on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent workman had abandoned the work and / or voluntarily left the job from 19/20.07.1989. On the contrary, it has come on record that respondent workman tried his best and wrote number of letters requesting management to permit him to resume the duty. However, the respondent workman was not permitted to resume the duty. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the learned Labour Court has committed any error in directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent workman on his original post i.e. Rojamdar. At this stage, it is required to be noted that as the respondent workman was serving as Rojamdar and he worked from 1983 to 1989, learned Labour Court has denied the back wages to him. 6.0. In view of the above and for the reasons stated, impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court is not required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court is in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Labour Court. Under the circumstances, present petition deserve to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. Ad-interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith. No costs." 9. In light of the facts and circumstances of present case and in light of the observations by learned Labour Court in the awards impugned in these two petitions, similar contentions have been raised and that therefore, the contentions raised by the contesting parties stand covered by the conclusion by the Court in paragraph No. 5.1 of the decision dated 12.6.2015. 10. In this view of the matter, these petitions are rejected in light of the observations and conclusions recorded by the Court in paragraph No. 5.1 of the decision dated 12.6.2015. 11. 10. In this view of the matter, these petitions are rejected in light of the observations and conclusions recorded by the Court in paragraph No. 5.1 of the decision dated 12.6.2015. 11. The reasons and conclusions recorded by the learned Labour Court in these two cases do not suffer from any infirmity and they do not warrant any interference in exercise of jurisdiction of this Court. The awards do not suffer from any infirmity and any ground to interfere with the impugned awards or to take any view different from the view taken by the learned Labour Court in the impugned awards is not made out. The petitions, therefore, fail and deserve to be rejected and are, accordingly, rejected. Rule is discharged. If any interim relief is in operation, it stands vacated. No costs.