JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Shukla, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate for Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 2 and 5. 2. From the record and from the submissions by learned advocate for the parties, it has emerged that while deciding Reference (L.C.A) No. 2367/94, the learned Labour Court accepted the submissions by respondent-Panchayat that the claimant workman had not worked with the Panchayat from 1980 to 1987, but he worked only during the period from 21.02.1987 to 28.02.1987, from 1st March, 1987 to 30th March, 1987 and from April-1987 to May-1987. The learned Labour Court proceeded on the basis of the said fact and reached to the conclusion that the respondent had not worked for 240 days during preceding 12 months, and therefore, the claimant-workman was not entitled for protection under Section 25F of the Act. Having regard to such conclusion, the learned Labour Court rejected the reference. 3. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to mention that the petitioner herein (herein after referred to as Claimant-Workman) had raised industrial dispute against the Panchayat on the allegation that he had worked as Work charge Clerk with the Panchayat from 1980 to 1987 continuously and during that period he had worked for 240 days in each phase of 12 months. He also alleged that his service was terminated with effect from 08.07.1987 by oral order and without following the procedure prescribed by law. 3.1 The respondent-panchayat opposed the reference by filing written-statement, wherein the Panchayat claimed that the applicant was engaged on fixed tenure and daily wage basis for temporary period for scarcity relief work. According to the details mentioned by the Panchayat, the claimant-workman had not worked with the Panchayat during any period except 21 February, 1987 to 28th February, 1987 and 1st March, 1987 to 30.05.1987. 4. Before the learned Labour Court, deposition of claimant workman was recorded and on behalf of the Panchayat deposition of one Mr. M.V. Patel was recorded. The concerned persons supported the respective case made out in the statement of claim and written-statement. Before the learned Labour Court, the panchayat had claimed that the claimant-workman had worked with the Panchayat during February 87 to May 1987 and that he was engaged for scarcity relief work. 5. At the time of hearing of the petition, Mr. The concerned persons supported the respective case made out in the statement of claim and written-statement. Before the learned Labour Court, the panchayat had claimed that the claimant-workman had worked with the Panchayat during February 87 to May 1987 and that he was engaged for scarcity relief work. 5. At the time of hearing of the petition, Mr. Shukla, learned advocate for the petitioner claimant asserted and submitted that the claimant-workman had placed appointment orders, certificates issued by the Panchayat office on record before the learned Labour Court. The documents at Annexures A and B of this petition i.e. Page Nos. 13 to 24 are relied upon by the claimant-workman to claim that claimant workman had worked during the period from 1980 to 1987. The learned advocate for the claimant-workman, more particularly relied on the appointment letter dated 10.10.1980 and certificate dated 24.07.1980 allegedly issued by Deputy Engineer, Panchayat Section, Dhanduka. Another certificate is dated 10.09.1981 which is issued, allegedly, by the Deputy Engineer, Dhanduka and some other certificates dated 08.07.1987 and 09.07.1982 allegedly issued by Deputy Executive Engineer, Dholka. Relying the relying on the said documents, the learned advocate for the claimant-workman submitted that the claimant-workman had worked during the period 1980 to 1987, however, the said fact are not taken into consideration by the learned Labour Court and even the said documents are not considered by the learned Labour Court. The learned advocate for the claimant-workman submitted that there is no reference of the said documents or discussion about the said documents in the impugned award. According to the learned advocate for the claimant-workman the impugned order is passed without taking into account relevant and important documents which are placed on record by the claimant-workman, and therefore, the award deserves to be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent-Panchayat relied on the details mentioned in the written-statement and he submitted that the respondent Panchayat had also placed on record the pay bill under which the salary was paid to the claimant-workman. He also submitted that in the appointment letter issued to claimant-workmen, it was specifically mentioned that his appointment was for fixed tenure and on daily wage basis and his service can be terminated at any time and that therefore, the claim raised by the claimant-workman was unjustified and the learned Labour Court has rightly rejected the reference. 7. He also submitted that in the appointment letter issued to claimant-workmen, it was specifically mentioned that his appointment was for fixed tenure and on daily wage basis and his service can be terminated at any time and that therefore, the claim raised by the claimant-workman was unjustified and the learned Labour Court has rightly rejected the reference. 7. I have considered the material on record of this petition and submissions by learned advocate for the claimant-workman and the respondent-Panchayat. I have also considered the award impugned in present petition. 8. Before proceeding further, it is relevant and necessary to mention that (i) learned advocate for the petitioner (claimant-workman) emphatically asserted that the documents which are placed on record of present petition at Annexure-A and B, Page Nos. 13 to 24, were placed on record before the learned Labour Court. (ii) Learned advocate for the respondent could not dispute the said assertion for want of instruction from the concerned respondent. Therefore, the Court has proceeded on in present matter by accepting the assertion by learned advocate for the petitioner i.e. claimant-workman (iii) The respondent-Panchayat has claimed that during hearing of present petition, the appointment orders (on which the claimant-workman relies) are issued by different Departments/different offices and not be one department or office. 8.1 It is also necessary to take into account the order dated 01.12.2015 passed by this Court. "1. Challenge in this petition is made by the workman to the order of the Labour Court whereby the reference is rejected. 2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 3. It was the case of the workman before the Labour Court that he was initially appointed by the office order dated 0.10.1980, which was issued by the Executive Engineer, Ahmedabad District Panchayat. The said appointment was is continued illegally and the Labour Court has rejected the reference, which is questioned before this Court. An affidavit-in-reply is filed by the respondent. The tenor of the affidavit is that the appointment order was issued by the Executive Engineer but not of Irrigation Department. The workman can not be expected to join the different Authorities in whose subordination he was working since ultimately he was an employee of the District Panchayat. An affidavit-in-reply is filed by the respondent. The tenor of the affidavit is that the appointment order was issued by the Executive Engineer but not of Irrigation Department. The workman can not be expected to join the different Authorities in whose subordination he was working since ultimately he was an employee of the District Panchayat. With a view see that the adjudication of the grievance of the workman is not derailed in such technicalities, the presence of the Higher Authorities of the District Panchayat is required in the matter. 4. Under above circumstances, learned advocate for the petitioner seeks permission to join District Development Officer, Ahmedabad District Panchayat, Laldarwaja, Ahmedabad as party respondent No. 5. Permission as prayed for is granted. Before the next date of hearing, the affidavit of an Appropriate Authority, on behalf of the newly added respondent be filed. 5. Issue Notice to the newly added respondent returnable on 21.12.2015. Over and above normal mode of service, direct service is permitted. It would be open to the petitioner to serve the respondents by Registered Post." 8.2 After the said order, further progress does not seem to have been made. 9. So far as the award is concerned, it is noticed that the learned Labour Court has proceeded on the premise that the claimant-workman was engaged during the period from February-1987 to May-1987 and the learned Labour Court also proceeded on the premise that the claimant-workman had never worked with the respondent-panchayat at any stage or for any period from 1980 to 1987. 9.1 However, the documents at Annexure-A and B, at Page Nos. 13 to 24, reflects another story inasmuch as the said orders and certificates go to show, of course prima-facie, that the claimant-workman had worked during 1981 and 1982 also. 9.2 In view of the fact that any discussion with regard to the said document is not found from the award and it appears that any evidence by any witness with regard to the said documents was not recorded before the learned Labour Court before the award came to be passed, the details mentioned in the award does not appear to have been duly considered by the learned Labour Court. The award is passed without taking into account the said documents and without considering and without discussing said documents and their effect, 9.3 On the other hand, from the documents placed on record by respondent Nos. 4 along with its affidavit dated 13.01.2016, it appears that the certain orders engaging the claimant-workman on 29 days basis were issued during the period from 1980, 1981, 1982 etc. 10. The crux of the above discussion is that various aspects related to the appointment of the claimant-workman are not considered by the learned Labour Court while passing the award. 10.1 It also appears that appropriate evidence, more particularly, oral evidence with regard to the documents placed on record of present petition, was not led by the claimant-workman and/or by the Panchayat and the documents placed on record of present petition by the respondent along with the affidavit dated 13.01.2016 had not been considered by the learned Labour Court. 10.2 Differently put, the findings and conclusion recorded by the learned Labour Court are reached and recorded without taking into account relevant documents and in absence of requisite oral evidence. 11. In view of the fact that the impugned order is passed without considering relevant documents and complete facts, this award is not maintainable and the case deserves reconsideration by the learned Labour Court so that both sides can have reasonable and sufficient opportunity of leading appropriate evidence, oral as well as documentary, to support and justify their respective case. 12. The award impugned in present petition is passed without having regard to the documents which were available on record and without considering the effect of the case emerging from the said documents. 13. On the other hand, sufficient evidence with regard to the documents is not available on record of present petition, more particularly the period from 1982 to January, 1987 is not explained by either side and there is no explanation available on record with regard above mentioned documents and to the said period. 14. It prima-facie appears that proper explanation/evidence with regard to the authorities who issued said orders/certificates should be brought on record and said aspects should be duly considered before recording final conclusion and before passing any order and direction. 15. Under the circumstances, it is not possible to finally decide the legality, propriety and maintainability of the petitioners claim, in absence of sufficient evidence. 16. 15. Under the circumstances, it is not possible to finally decide the legality, propriety and maintainability of the petitioners claim, in absence of sufficient evidence. 16. Therefore, only course of action which is available for the Court, at this stage, is to remand the matter for reconsideration by the learned Labour Court so that the parties can lead appropriate evidence and the case may be decided afresh after considering the relevant evidence. Therefore, following order is passed:-- "For the foregoing reasons and in light of the above discussion, the award dated 31.05.2006 passed by the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (L.C.A.) No. 2367 of 1994 is set aside. The reference is remanded to the concerned learned Labour Court for fresh decision after granting reasonable and sufficient opportunity to the claimant-workman and the opponent Panchayat. The learned Labour Court shall allow the parties to lead appropriate and requisite evidence and the learned Labour Court shall pass fresh award on merits after hearing the parties and after taking into account the evidence which may be placed on record but without being influenced by the impugned award or by the present order (whereby the award is set aside). The learned Labour Court will decide the reference independently and in own merits. In view of the fact that the order of Reference was passed in 1994, the learned Labour Court shall endeavour to hear and decide the reference afresh expeditiously and preferably within 6 months after the receipt of writ of this Court. It is also clarified that the learned Labour Court shall also take into account the fact that according to claim by the workman his service was terminated in July, 1987, whereas workman raised industrial dispute in September/October, 1994 i.e. after seven years. While passing the impugned award, the learned Labour Court has not taken into account the said fact. Therefore, the said aspect will also be taken into consideration by the learned Labour Court. With the aforesaid observations, clarifications and directions, present petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent."