JUDGMENT: K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. Mansuri, learned advocate for the respondent. 2. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged award dated 16.10.2004 passed by learned Labour Court, Vadodara, in Reference (LCV) No. 294 of 1988 whereby the learned Labour Court directed present petitioner to reinstate the respondent on his original post and to pay full backwages with effect from 16.12.1997. 2.1 Feeling aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner corporation has filed present petition. 3. At the outset, it is relevant and necessary to mention that as such, in view of subsequent developments and in view of joint submissions by learned advocate for the petitioner Board and learned advocate for the respondent any detailed order is not required to be passed. 3.1 On this count, it is appropriate to mention that learned advocate for the respondent and learned advocate for the petitioner Board have jointly submitted that the petitioner Board has reinstated the respondent by passing order dated 20.04.2006 (a copy of the order is placed on record by the petitioner Board along with its affidavit dated 12.06.2006). 3.2 Mr. Mansuri, learned advocate for the respondent, also confirmed that the respondent workman has informed that the petitioner Board has reinstated him and he is, presently, in service with the petitioner Board. 3.3 In this view of the matter, so far as direction passed by learned Labour Court requiring the petitioner to reinstate the respondent is concerned, it is complied with. 4. So far as the direction to pay full backwages w.e.f. 16.12.1997 is concerned, Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate for the petitioner Board, submitted that vide order dated 10.7.2006, the petitioner Board has paid a sum of Rs. 46,345/- to the respondent workman towards the backwages as directed by the learned Labour Court. 4.1 Mr. Mansuri, learned advocate for the respondent workman, also confirmed that the said amount is paid by the petitioner Board to the respondent workman. 4.2 Thus, even the direction requiring the petitioner Board to pay backwages w.e.f. 16.12.1997 is complied by the petitioner Board. 4.3 Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate for the petitioner Board, submitted that the amount payable towards the backwages is calculated in accordance with the directions by the learned Labour Court vide award dated 16.10.2004 and accordingly, the direction to pay backwages is also complied with. 4.3 Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate for the petitioner Board, submitted that the amount payable towards the backwages is calculated in accordance with the directions by the learned Labour Court vide award dated 16.10.2004 and accordingly, the direction to pay backwages is also complied with. 4.4 The above submission and declaration by learned advocate for the petitioner which is confirmed by learned advocate for the respondent gives out that the award is completely complied with by the petitioner Board. 5. In above view of the matter, ordinarily, a detailed order with regard to challenge against the impugned award would not be necessary, however, in view of the fact that in the order dated 20.4.2006 whereby the respondent came to be reinstated, the petitioner Board has mentioned that the reinstatement is subject to the final order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 1239 of 2006, it is necessary to consider the petitioner's challenge against the award. 6. With reference to the impugned award and directions. I have heard Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate for the petitioner Board, and Mr. Mansuri, learned advocate for the respondent. I have also considered the material on record and the findings and conclusions recorded by the learned Labour Court. 7. On examination of the award, it has emerged that the respondent was working with the petitioner Board as tube well operator since last 3 years before his service came to be terminated w.e.f. 19.2.1988. 7.1 According to the respondent, he was paid salary of Rs. 460/- per month and his service came to be terminated without following any procedure prescribed by law. 7.2 The petitioner Board claimed that on account of scarcity of rain, the water level in the tube well had gone much below the capacity to operate the tube wells and that therefore, operations and usage of several tube wells had to be discontinued. The petitioner Board also claimed that since the operations of various tube wells is discontinued, the person engaged on daily wage basis or on ad-hoc and stop gap arrangement basis or on work charge basis came to be relieved. The petitioner Board also claimed before the learned Labour Court that a policy decision also came to be taken by the petitioner Board that if need arises to operate any tube well, then, it would be done by outsourcing which are to be operated on seasonal or periodical basis. The petitioner Board also claimed before the learned Labour Court that a policy decision also came to be taken by the petitioner Board that if need arises to operate any tube well, then, it would be done by outsourcing which are to be operated on seasonal or periodical basis. The petitioner Board also claimed that the respondent was engaged by the contractor to whom the contract was awarded and he was not employed by the petitioner Board. 8. The learned Labour Court considered the rival and conflicting contentions and the evidence placed on record by the parties to the reference. The learned Labour Court has observed and recorded in the award that the appointment order by virtue of which the respondent was appointed is placed on record at mark 15/4 and on examination of the said appointment order, it comes out that the appointment order does not reflect that the respondent was appointed by the contractor. The learned Labour Court has also taken into account an order passed by the petitioner Board whereby the respondent was transferred and on examining the said order, the learned Labour Court has recorded that the said order does not speak about any contractor and on examination of the said order, it cannot be said that the respondent was engaged by the contractor. The learned Labour Court has observed that if the respondent was appointed by the contractor, then, in the appointment letter (Exh. 28), the said aspect would have been categorically mentioned, however, the appointment order (Exh. 28) does not support the petitioner's claim that the respondent was engaged by the contract. After careful consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Labour Court rejected the claim that the respondent was engaged by the contractor. Any material is not placed on record of this petition to convince the Court that the learned Labour Court's finding of fact is erroneous or contrary to the relevant document. The conclusion which is based on the details mentioned in the appointment order does not warrant any interference. The said finding cannot be said to be incorrect or perverse. 9. Once it is established that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the respondent was engaged by the contractor, it would follow that the appointment of the respondent was made by the petitioner, then, the fact that the service of the respondent was terminated will come in picture. The said finding cannot be said to be incorrect or perverse. 9. Once it is established that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the respondent was engaged by the contractor, it would follow that the appointment of the respondent was made by the petitioner, then, the fact that the service of the respondent was terminated will come in picture. No sooner the said aspect came in picture, then, it give rises to the question as to whether the service of the respondent was terminated after following prescribed procedure by law or not. From the evidence on record, it was not disputed before the learned Labour Court that at the time when the service of the respondent was terminated in February-1988, the respondent was not paid any retrenchment compensation. Any notice was not issued and served nor any inquiry was conducted. Thus, it was established that the respondent's service was terminated either in violation of principle of natural justice and/or without complying the provision under Section 25F. The fact that the respondent had worked for more than 12 months and that in preceding 12 months, he had worked for 240 days was also established before the learned Labour Court. Thus, the factors which would attract Section 25F were established before the learned Labour Court. Under the circumstances, the question arises as to whether the petitioner Board complied the requirement prescribed by the said section or not. On examination of the record, it comes out that it was not even the case of the petitioner that the condition under Section 25F was followed and complied. Therefore, learned Labour Court's conclusion that the respondent's service was terminated in violation of statutory provision cannot be faulted. When it is established that the termination was effected in violation of Section 25F of the Act as a corollary, the direction to reinstate the workman with backwages would follow. Therefore, the direction passed by the learned Labour Court vide impugned award cannot be faulted more so when the petitioner failed to establish that the respondent workman was gainfully employed in the interregnum, i.e. during the period of pendency of the reference. 10. Therefore, the direction passed by the learned Labour Court vide impugned award cannot be faulted more so when the petitioner failed to establish that the respondent workman was gainfully employed in the interregnum, i.e. during the period of pendency of the reference. 10. On this count, it is pertinent to note that the respondent was terminated in February 1988 and the order of reference came to be passed in April 1988, however, the respondent workman, for the first time, entered into the box to give his evidence before the learned Labour Court in December 1997. Therefore, the learned Labour Court has taken into account the said aspect and restricted the direction/relief to pay backwages and made it applicable from the date when the respondent appeared before the Court for getting his deposition recorded. For the period during which the respondent did not attend the proceedings backwages are denied. In this view of the matter, the said direction also does not warrant any interference. On overall consideration of the award, this Court finds that the learned Labour Court has not committed any error. Any ground to interfere with the impugned award is not made out. The petition fails and deserves to be rejected and is, accordingly, rejected. Rule is discharged. Ad-interim relief, if any, stands vacated.