JUDGMENT : K.M. THAKER, J. 1. Heard Ms. Shah, learned AGP. No one has entered appearance for the respondent even after issuance of fresh Rule. Despite service, no one has entered appearance. 2. In present petition, the petitioner Range Forest Officer has challenged award dated 30.3.2013 passed by the learned Labour Court in Reference (LCJ) No. 195 of 2000 whereby the learned Labour Court has directed present petitioner to reinstate the claimant in service on his original post with continuity of service, however, without back-wages. Feeling aggrieved by the said direction, the petitioner Range Forest Officer has taken out present petition. 3. So far as the factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record and from the submissions by learned AGP that the claimant raised industrial dispute on the allegation that his service is terminated illegally by oral order w.e.f. 15.12.1999 The appropriate Government referred the said dispute for adjudication to the learned Labour Court at Junagadh. The dispute was registered as Reference (LCJ) No. 195 of 2000. Before the learned Labour Court, the claimant filed statement of claim with the allegation that he was employed by the opponent employer as daily wage labourer since 1987 and the opponent employer illegally terminated his service by oral order on 15.12.1999 He alleged that when his service was terminated, he was drawing salary at Rs.60 per day and the opponent terminated his service without issuing notice and without payment of compensation and without granting opportunity of hearing. The claimant alleged breach of section 25F and section 25G. With such allegation, the claimant came to be reinstated with consequential benefits. 4. The opponent Range Forest Officer opposed the reference and the demand by the claimant. The opponent submitted to the learned Labour Court that the claimant was engaged for some ad hoc and casual work on temporary and daily wage basis and that after working for some time, the claimant voluntarily stopped reporting for work. It was also claimed that since he was engaged only for temporary period on ad hoc and daily wage basis for casual work, any prescribed procedure for selection and recruitment was not followed. It was also claimed that the candidature of the claimant was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange and he was not engaged for 240 days. It was also claimed that since he was engaged only for temporary period on ad hoc and daily wage basis for casual work, any prescribed procedure for selection and recruitment was not followed. It was also claimed that the candidature of the claimant was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange and he was not engaged for 240 days. It was also claimed that since the claimant was engaged for casual work, he has no right to continue in employment and his service came to end when the work, for which he was engaged, was completed. 5. Subsequently, the deposition of the claimant was recorded. The petitioner, i.e. original opponent examine one Mr. J.M. Odedara as witness. The witness of the petitioner, i.e. original opponent stated that the claimant was engaged for seasonal and casual work and that the claimant had voluntarily stopped reporting for work. It was also stated that the work, for which the claimant was engaged, is not available and the said project has come to an end. 6. The learned Labour Court considered the evidence on record also considered rival submissions by the contesting parties and after examining material on record, the learned Labour Court reached to the conclusion that the claimant's termination is illegal and therefore, the learned Labour Court passed the impugned award with above mentioned directions. 7. At the time of hearing of the petition, Ms. Shah, learned AGP submitted that the respondent was engaged for seasonal and casual work and that he was engaged on ad hoc and temporary basis for short duration. She also submitted that the respondent was engaged on daily wage basis and after some time the claimant had voluntarily stopped reporting for work. She submitted that the claimant had not worked for 240 days and the allegation that he was engaged since 1987, is incorrect. She submitted that since the claimant had not worked for 240 days and since he was engaged only for short duration for project work, the question of complying section 25F did not arise. Learned AGP, without prejudice to the other contentions, submitted that after the learned Labour Court passed the award, the petitioner reinstated the workman and when the work, for which the claimant was re-engaged, came to end, he was asked to report at other place, however, the claimant did not report for work at the other place. Learned AGP, without prejudice to the other contentions, submitted that after the learned Labour Court passed the award, the petitioner reinstated the workman and when the work, for which the claimant was re-engaged, came to end, he was asked to report at other place, however, the claimant did not report for work at the other place. In this context, learned AGP relied on the details mentioned in the affidavit dated 4.7.2016 In the said affidavit, the Range Forest Officer, Kutiyana Range has averred and stated, inter-alia, that: “2. It is respectfully submitted that in compliance of the oral direction of this Hon'ble Court opponent workman was reinstated as the daily wagers at Kutiyana Range, Junagadh Forest Division on 21.06.2014 and thus opponent was given work within Kutiyana Range. 3. It is further submitted that, after reinstatement petitioner was assigned work various projects run by the Forest Department at Khagesri, Ramnagar, Devda, Helabeli. However, after reinstatement, opponent was not performing his duty properly and was very irregular in resuming his duty. It is further submitted that works related the projects was finished by December 2015. 4. Thereafter, as petitioner is abide by the order by this Hon'ble Court, opponent was assigned work at another place at Amipur Dam situated in Kutiyana Range. It is further submitted that opponent denied to resume duty at another place. And it is difficult for petitioner to assign work to the opponent at same place as work of the projects was over by December 2015. Hence, opponent started to come late on the duty, not only that he never followed the instructions of officers. Therefore, due to Systematic irregular work and disobedience of the instructions of the officer, report dated 26.12.2015 was prepared by the Round Forester. 5. It is further submitted that opponent did not join the duty and he himself stop coming on the work at Amipur Dam. Thus it is very much clear opponent himself left the job since December 2015. 6. It is further submit that thereafter opponent has requested to give work nearby his residence. Hence, considering the request of the opponent, by letter dated 25.01.2016 opponent was informed to resume the duty at Khageshri Round which is hardly 5-6 kms away from his residence.” 8. As mentioned earlier, no one has entered appearance for the respondent and the respondent himself was not attended the hearing. Hence, considering the request of the opponent, by letter dated 25.01.2016 opponent was informed to resume the duty at Khageshri Round which is hardly 5-6 kms away from his residence.” 8. As mentioned earlier, no one has entered appearance for the respondent and the respondent himself was not attended the hearing. In this view of the matter, so far as the respondent is concerned, this Court has considered his statement of claim, his deposition and the observations by the learned Labour Court. 9. In present case, the learned Labour Court has recorded findings of fact with regard to the petitioner's claim that the respondent voluntarily stopped reporting for work and that the respondent had not worked for 240 days. After examining the evidence available on record, the learned Labour Court rejected petitioner's claim that the respondent had voluntarily stopped reporting for work. The learned Labour Court also rejected the petitioner's case that the respondent had not worked for 240 days. The learned Labour Court has recorded specific findings of fact which are against the petitioner. 10. During his deposition, the claimant categorically denied the petitioner's suggestion that he was engaged at different places during the period he worked with the petitioner. The claimant also denied the suggestion that he had not worked for 240 days. During his deposition, the claimant asserted that he had worked with the petitioner for almost 12 years from 1987 to 1999 and that he had worked continuously and regularly. 11. Even the witness of the petitioner admitted during his deposition that any appointment letter with specific service condition declaring that the respondent engaged for any specific work or project work and/or he was engaged for temporary or short duration or for seasonal or casual, was not issued. 12. The witness of the petitioner also admitted that the office of the Range Forest Officer had not issued any intimation to the claimant that he was not voluntarily reporting for duty and/or that he remained absent without leave and/or that if he did not report for duty, appropriate action in accordance with law will be taken against him. 13. 12. The witness of the petitioner also admitted that the office of the Range Forest Officer had not issued any intimation to the claimant that he was not voluntarily reporting for duty and/or that he remained absent without leave and/or that if he did not report for duty, appropriate action in accordance with law will be taken against him. 13. Besides this, it is pertinent that when the respondent-claimant served demand notice dated 1.2.2000 asking the Range Forest Officer to reinstate him, the office of the Range Forest Officer could have informed the respondent that he was actually not reporting for duty and that his service was not terminated and that he should resume his duties. 14. However, the petitioner, undisputedly, did not give any reply to the said demand notice. 15. In view of such facts, the learned Labour Court has not believed the case of the petitioner that the respondent had voluntarily stopped reporting for duty and that the office of the Range Forest Officer had not terminated his service by oral order. 16. There is no material on record in light of which the Court would disagree with the findings of fact recorded by the learned Labour Court or in light of which this Court can take view different from the view taken by learned advocate. 17. Learned AGP has failed to show any material from the record that the said conclusion and finding of fact recorded by the learned Labour Court are erroneous or incorrect or contrary to the evidence on record. 18. The learned Labour Court has also recorded another finding of fact in light of the evidence available on record, more particularly in light of the deposition by the petitioner's witness, i.e. that the work, for which the petitioner was engaged, is available and for such work, certain other persons were engaged, however, the respondent was not called for work when other persons were engaged. 19. Having regard to the evidence available on record, the learned Labour Court has recorded findings of fact that the petitioner committed breach of section 25F and section 25H. 20. At the time of hearing of present petition, learned AGP has failed to show any material from the record which would convince this Court that the findings of fact recorded by the learned Labour Court are incorrect or perverse or contrary to the evidence on record. 20. At the time of hearing of present petition, learned AGP has failed to show any material from the record which would convince this Court that the findings of fact recorded by the learned Labour Court are incorrect or perverse or contrary to the evidence on record. Learned AGP has also failed to establish that any persons were not engaged for similar work after the respondent was discontinued and/or that section 25F was not attracted at all and the respondent did not commit breach either of section 25F or section 25G. 21. In this view of the matter, the award passed by the learned Labour Court, so far as the final conclusion that the petitioner committed breach of statutory provision is concerned, cannot be faulted and the said conclusion does not warrant any interference. 22. In view of the fact that the learned Labour Court has recorded findings of fact that the petitioner committed breach of statutory provision and in view of the fact that the learned Labour Court did not believe the petitioner's defence that it was the respondent who had stopped reporting for work, the conclusion by the learned Labour Court that the respondent's service was terminated by the petitioner and that the said termination was vitiated on account of breach of section 25F and the conclusion that the respondent's termination was illegal, cannot be faulted. 23. In this view of the matter, question which arises is about appropriate relief. 24. When, on reading and examining the award and after considering material available on record, it is found that the conclusion by the learned Labour Court with regard to the respondent's termination is not erroneous and does not warrant interference and when it is found that the petitioner had committed breach of statutory provision, the order directing the reinstatement of the workman cannot be faulted. 25. Further, when the respondent complied the said direction and reinstated the claimant and when the respondent itself has stated in the affidavit made in July 2016 that it has instructed the claimant to report for work at different place, even otherwise the direction to reinstate the respondent does not warrant interference. 26. Therefore, the petition against the order directing the petitioner to reinstate the claimant is not accepted and the petition to that extent is rejected. 27. The learned Labour Court also directed the petitioner to treat the respondent's service continuous. 28. 26. Therefore, the petition against the order directing the petitioner to reinstate the claimant is not accepted and the petition to that extent is rejected. 27. The learned Labour Court also directed the petitioner to treat the respondent's service continuous. 28. In this context, it is relevant to note that the respondent was undisputedly engaged as daily wager. It is also not in dispute that the respondent did not place any material on record to establish that he worked with the petitioner since 1987. It is also relevant to keep in focus that initial appointment of the claimant was made without following prescribed procedure for selection and recruitment. Further, according to the respondent's allegation, his service was terminated in December 1999. The learned Labour Court passed the award after about 14 years. Under the circumstances, if the direction by the learned Labour Court awarding continuity of service is maintained, then the respondent would earn continuity of service for 14 years and that too, despite the fact that his appointment at initial stage itself is irregular. Under the circumstances, the direction to treat the respondent's service continuous is not justified. Under the circumstances, the order directing the petitioner to treat the respondent's service continuous deserves to be set aside and it is hereby set aside. 29. Since the learned Labour Court has not awarded back-wages, any need to examine such direction does not arise. 30. On overall consideration of the matter and in light of the foregoing discussion, following order is passed: (a) The order directing the petitioner to reinstate the claimant-respondent is not disturbed and the said direction is confirmed; (b) The order directing the petitioner to treat the respondent's service continuous is set aside; (c) Accordingly, the impugned award is partly modified and the petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Orders accordingly.