JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Vivek N. Mapara, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. J.P. Bhatt, learned advocate for the respondent No. 2. Though served no one has entered appearance for respondent No. 1 i.e. Bedi Gram Panchayat. 2. Having regard to the facts of the case, Rule. Mr. J.P. Bhatt, learned advocate has waived service of Notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent No. 2. At the request of learned advocate for the petitioner and with consent of learned advocate for the respondent the petition is heard for final decision today. 3. It has emerged from the record that the petitioners were working with the respondent No. 1 i.e. Bedi Gram Panchayat. 3.1 The respondent No. 1 i.e. Bedi Gram Panchayat allegedly terminated petitioners' service w.e.f. 6.4.2002. 3.2 Feeling aggrieved by the respondent No. 1 i.e. Bedi Gram Panchayat's action the petitioners/workmen raised Industrial Dispute wherein the respondent No. 2 was subsequently impleaded as party respondent and after adjudication of the reference learned labour Court passed award dated 23.5.2013 directing the respondent No. 2 i.e. Jamnagar Municipal Corporation to pay Rs. 25,000/- towards lumpsum compensation to the claimants -workmen. The petitioners are aggrieved by the said action and with a view to seeking further relief the petitioners have taken out present petitions and challenged the order dated 23.5.2013. 3.3 In Special Civil Application No. 11888 of 2013 the petitioner has challenged, inter alia, that:- "6B. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari, modifying the impugned Judgment and award dated 23.5.2013 passed in Reference (L.C.J.) No. 158/03 by the Court of Ld. Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 1, Jamnagar, to the effect of directing respondent No. 2 to reinstatement petitioner with continuity of service and award full backwages to petitioner;" 3.4 In Special Civil Application No. 11889 of 2013 the petitioner has challenged, inter alia, that:- "6B. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari, modifying the impugned Judgment and award dated 23.5.2013 passed in Reference (L.C.J.) No. 157/03 by the Court of Ld. Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 1, Jamnagar, to the effect of directing respondent No. 2 to reinstatement petitioner with continuity of service and award full backwages to petitioner;" 4. Mr. Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 1, Jamnagar, to the effect of directing respondent No. 2 to reinstatement petitioner with continuity of service and award full backwages to petitioner;" 4. Mr. Mapara, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case learned labour Court ought to have directed the respondent No. 1 i.e. Bedi Gram Panchayat to reinstate the petitioners. He submitted that when other factual aspects are found to be in favour of the petitioners viz. that the petitioners had continuously worked with the respondent No. 1 i.e. Bedi Gram Panchayat for many years and that in preceding 12 months the petitioners had continuously worked for more than 240 days, the direction to reinstate the petitioners and to also pay backwages should have been granted. He also submitted that learned labour Court has committed error in awarding lumpsum compensation instead of granting direction to the respondent No. 1 i.e. Bedi Gram Panchayat to reinstate the petitioners and to pay backwages. 5. Mr. Bhatt, learned advocate for the respondent No. 1 i.e. Bedi Gram Panchayat submitted that the service of the petitioners was terminated by the respondent No. 1 i.e. Bedi Gram Panchayat and not by the Corporation. He also submitted that the petitioners had failed to place any evidence on record to establish their allegations that they were working with respondent No. 1 i.e. Bedi Gram Panchayat since 1970 and they were paid salary of Rs. 2117/-. He also submitted that the petitioners' appointments were illegal and without any vacancy on sanctioned post and that therefore the learned labour Court has rightly rejected the request for direction to reinstate the petitioners. According to the learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 corporation the direction passed by the learned Labour Court qua the respondent No. 2 corporation is actually unjust and unreasonable because the respondent No. 2 corporation is saddled with the obligation of payment of lumpsum compensation without any fault on its part. 6. Before proceeding further, it is relevant and necessary to mention undisputed facts which have emerged from the record of the petition and from the submissions by learned advocate for the petitioners and the respondent that: "6.1 It is not in dispute that the petitioners herein are not selected and appointed by the respondent No. 2 corporation. 6. Before proceeding further, it is relevant and necessary to mention undisputed facts which have emerged from the record of the petition and from the submissions by learned advocate for the petitioners and the respondent that: "6.1 It is not in dispute that the petitioners herein are not selected and appointed by the respondent No. 2 corporation. 6.2 It is also not in dispute that the petitioners workmen (not even for the single day) had never worked with the respondent No. 2 corporation. 6.3 It is also not in dispute that the petitioners herein were appointed and employed by the respondent No. 1 Bedi Gram Panchayat. 6.4 It is also not in dispute that the service of the petitioners was terminated by the respondent No. 1 Bedi Gram Panchayat and not by the respondent No. 2 corporation. 6.5 It is also not in dispute that the petitioners herein were retrenched by the respondent No. 1 Bedi Gram Panchayat vide order dated 6.4.2002 which was forwarded to the petitioners by Registered Post and along with the said retrenchment order dated 6.4.2002 the amount payable towards retrenchment compensation and notice pay was also forwarded to the petitioners." 7. From the award it has emerged that it was the petitioners who refused to accept the service of the retrenchment order and cheque for the amount towards notice pay and retrenchment compensation. 7.1 It is also not in dispute that the respondent No. 1 Bedi Gram Panchayat came to be merged with the respondent No. 1 corporation w.e.f. 14.2.2006. 7.2 Meaning thereby the petitioners were employed before the said merger and they were even retrenched from the service before said merger and that the corporation did not retrench them. 7.3 It is also not in dispute that after respondent No. 1 Bedi Gram Panchayat passed order dated 6.4.2002 the petitioners raised Industrial Dispute vide order of reference dated 29.8.2003 and the reference came to be registered as Reference No. 158 of 2003 and 157 of 2003. 7.4 The learned Labour Court adjudicated the dispute and passed the award vide order dated 23.5.2013 (i.e. after aforesaid merger of respondent No. 1 Bedi Gram Panchayat) directing the respondent corporation to pay lumpsum compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-. 7.5 The reference was opposed and contested by respondent No. 1 Bedi Gram Panchayat by filing its reply. 7.4 The learned Labour Court adjudicated the dispute and passed the award vide order dated 23.5.2013 (i.e. after aforesaid merger of respondent No. 1 Bedi Gram Panchayat) directing the respondent corporation to pay lumpsum compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-. 7.5 The reference was opposed and contested by respondent No. 1 Bedi Gram Panchayat by filing its reply. In its written statement respondent No. 1 Bedi Gram Panchayat had asserted that the petitioners had not worked for 240 days in preceding 12 months and that their service was terminated w.e.f 6.4.2002 in accordance with law and after following procedure prescribed by law. The respondent No. 1 had also asserted that the petitioners had refused to accept retrenchment order and the compensation amount. 7.6 The respondent No. 1 had also asserted before the learned labour Court that it was constrained to retrench the workman on account of steep decline in financial position and with a view to reducing the financial burden certain employees were retrenched and after following prescribed procedure and that compensation and other amounts payable on effective date were offered/paid to the concerned workman. 7.7 It was also claimed before the learned Labour Court that the petitioners were engaged by way of back door entry inasmuch as the procedure prescribed for selection and recruitment was not followed and the petitioners were engaged on daily wage bases. 7.8 The workmen claimed before the learned Labour Court that they were working with the respondent No. 1 Bedi Gram Panchayat as "Safai Kaamdar" on and from 1970 at salary of Rs. 2117/- and that their service was terminated w.e.f. 6.4.2002 in breach of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H. The petitioners also claimed that the seniority list was not notified and retrenchment compensation was not acceptable and therefore it was not accepted. 8. Before proceeding further it is relevant and necessary to mention that so far as present case and the petitioners are concerned learned advocates for the petitioners and respondent have jointly submitted that the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 11888 of 2013 died during pendency of the petition on 25.4.2015. 9. I have heard learned advocates for the petitioners and the respondent and also considered the material on record and also examined the award impugned in present petition. 9. I have heard learned advocates for the petitioners and the respondent and also considered the material on record and also examined the award impugned in present petition. 9.1 For deciding the dispute raised by the petitioners, it is necessary to keep in focus that the petitioners were employed by respondent No. 1 Bedi Gram Panchayat and their service was terminated by way of retrenchment by respondent No. 1 Bedi Gram Panchayat. It was about 4 years after the petitioners' termination from service that the respondent No. 1 Bedi Gram Panchayat came to be merged with the respondent No. 2 corporation. 9.2 At the outset it is necessary to mention that in present case certain relevant, primary and basic factual aspects are unclear. 9.3 The learned advocate for the petitioners is not in position to mention with any clarity the details as regards the date of birth of the petitioner or the date of joining of the petitioners in the service with the respondent No. 1 Bedi Gram Panchayat and the date on which the petitioners would attain age prescribed for superannuation. 9.4 With reference to the question regarding date of joining of the petitioners, learned advocates for the petitioners and respondent referred to a document at page 52 of the petition. 9.5 It appears that on the basis of the details supplied by the respondent No. 1 Bedi Gram Panchayat the respondent No. 2 had prepared a statement of the employees who were, at some point of time prior to the merger, were employees with the respondent No. 1 Bedi Gram Panchayat. 9.6 On the basis of such details, the statement which is placed at page 52 of present petition came to be prepared. 9.7 The said list contains names of 21 persons. The said list reflects that out of the said 21 persons, 8 persons had instituted proceedings before learned labour Court, 2 persons have died and 2 persons had attained age of superannuation and 6 persons were absorbed in the service with the respondent No. 2 corporation. 9.8 The notification whereby the respondent No. 1 Bedi Gram Panchayat came to be merged in the corporation is not available on record, therefore it is not possible to assert the terms and condition on which the respondent No. 1 Bedi Gram Panchayat merged in the respondent No. 2 corporation. 9.8 The notification whereby the respondent No. 1 Bedi Gram Panchayat came to be merged in the corporation is not available on record, therefore it is not possible to assert the terms and condition on which the respondent No. 1 Bedi Gram Panchayat merged in the respondent No. 2 corporation. It is not clear as to whether the employees of respondent No. 1 Bedi Gram Panchayat, who were in service on date of merger (or, litigation was pending) were transferred to and were to be absorbed (according to the terms of merger) by the corporation, or not. 9.9 According to the above mentioned list which is placed on record of present petition at page 52, the petitioners joined the service with the respondent No. 1 Bedi Gram Panchayat on and from 1970 however, when the other relevant aspects are taken into account, it is difficult to accept the said date as correct date of joining in service in respect of the petitioners. 10. Today at the time of hearing of present petition learned advocate for the petitioners submitted, on the basis of information given by heirs/legal representative of the deceased petitioner that his birth date is 5.4.1963. If the birth date mentioned by the learned advocate for the deceased petitioner is taken as correct date of birth then it would translate into a situation that the deceased petitioner had joined service of the respondent No. 1 Bedi Gram Panchayat when he was 7 years old. The document at page 52 reflects 1.5.1970 as the date of joining with the respondent No. 1 Bedi Gram Panchayat so far as deceased petitioner is concerned. 10.1 Thus, either the date of birth (informed to the Court) is inaccurate or the date of joining mentioned in the list is incorrect. 10.2 So far as other workman i.e. Jamnaben Lakhubhai is concerned, Mr. Mapara, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted during the hearing that on inquiry concerned workman Jamnaben informed him telephonically that her birth date is 1.5.1961. He further submitted that actually the concerned workman Jamnaben has forwarded an affidavit which is made by said workman Jamnaben wherein concerned workman has declared that her birth date is 1.5.1961. Mapara, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted during the hearing that on inquiry concerned workman Jamnaben informed him telephonically that her birth date is 1.5.1961. He further submitted that actually the concerned workman Jamnaben has forwarded an affidavit which is made by said workman Jamnaben wherein concerned workman has declared that her birth date is 1.5.1961. The said statement and declaration also raises doubt with regard to the details mentioned in the document at page 52 inasmuch as according to the details mentioned in the said statement at page 52 the said Jamnaben joined the service on 13.6.1974. In the said document 13.6.1974 is shown as the date on which she joined the service, however said details appear improbable. In case of Jamnaben either the date of joining the service is incorrect or the date of birth is incorrect inasmuch as if the birth date of Jamnaben is 1.5.1961 then it would translate into situation that she joined the service at the age of 13 years. 10.3 In this view of the matter it is not possible to determine the total number of years for which the deceased petitioner served with the respondent No. 1 Bedi Gram Panchayat when he was retrenched on 6.4.2002. For the same reason it is also not possible to determine his age or total number of service on the date on which he was retrenched i.e. 6.4.2002. 10.4 From the material on record it has also emerged that certain other employees who were also retrenched along with present petitioners had instituted proceedings before learned labour Court. The award passed by the learned labour Court in said other cases instituted by other employees of erstwhile Bedi Gram Panchayat, the petitions being Special Civil Application No. 11389 of 2009, Special Civil Application No. 11390 of 2009, Special Civil Application No. 11391 of 2009, Special Civil Application No. 11392 of 2009, Special Civil Application No. 11393 of 2009, Special Civil Application No. 11394 of 2009, Special Civil Application No. 11395 of 2009 and Special Civil Application No. 11396 of 2009 in respect of award passed in reference No. 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223 and 224 of 2003 respectively filed in this Court. By the said award the learned labour Court had directed the corporation to reinstate the concerned claimants and to pay 20% backwages and in one case i.e. Reference No. 225 of 2003 the learned labour Court awarded compensation in lieu of reinstatement and backwages by awarding lumpsum compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioners sought to rely on the said common judgment dated 27.4.2010 passed in above mentioned petitions. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would contend that similar benefits ought to have been granted by the learned Labour Court in case of the petitioners. 12. However, in view of the facts of present case which are mentioned herein before earlier, it appears that learned labour Court consciously did not pass similar and identical award in case of present petitioners. Learned labour Court has recorded sufficient and cogent reason for not granting relief of reinstatement or backwages and instead awarding lumpsum compensation. 13. In present case it has emerged that it was the petitioners who had declined to accept the service of retrenchment order and the compensation amount. 13.1 The forgoing discussion has also brought out that there are serious dispute as regards the petitioners' date of joining and as regards the date of birth and total length of service with respondent No. 1 Bedi Gram Panchayat before their service came to be terminated by way of retrenchment by respondent No. 1 Bedi Gram Panchayat. 13.2 In present case it is noticed that the learned labour Court has proceeded on the presumption that the petitioners must have worked for 240 days in preceding 12 months. The reason or ground in light of which the learned Labour Court considered it appropriate to draw inference are not mentioned in the award. 14. After examining and appreciating and after analysing oral and documentary evidence the learned labour Court has recorded categorical finding of fact that it was the petitioners who refused to accept the service of the retrenchment compensation and the retrenchment order. 15. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondent No. 1 Bedi Gram Panchayat had not followed prescribed procedure for retrenchment. 15.1 It has also emerged that undisputedly the order dated 6.4.2002 was forwarded to the petitioners alongwith the cheque representing amount of compensation however, the petitioners had refused to accept it. 15. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondent No. 1 Bedi Gram Panchayat had not followed prescribed procedure for retrenchment. 15.1 It has also emerged that undisputedly the order dated 6.4.2002 was forwarded to the petitioners alongwith the cheque representing amount of compensation however, the petitioners had refused to accept it. 15.2 Despite such facts which are recorded by the learned labour Court, the Court has made observation and recorded conclusion that the Section 25F was violated when the service of the petitioners came to be terminated by way of retrenchment. 15.3 Any specific ground in light of which the said conclusion is arrived at and recorded does not clearly come out from the award. 15.4 However, in view of the fact that the respondent No. 2 corporation has not challenged the award, there is no need to further deliberate on the said issue. 15.5 From the award it emerges that the learned Labour Court has observed that before passing impugned order of retrenchment the seniority list was not published. Any material to establish that when the petitioners were retrenched their juniors were retained in service is not available on record and such finding is not recorded by the Court in the award. 16. Learned Labour Court has drawn inference that the petitioners had worked for 240 days in preceding 12 months. However, in view of the fact that the respondent No. 1 Bedi Gram Panchayat had considered the petitioners entitled for the retrenchment compensation and had forwarded, by registered post, the retrenchment order and retrenchment compensation, the said fact would pale into significance since the requirement to pay compensation was complied and as recorded by Labour Court the petitioners had refused to accept the compensation. 17. In view of the fact that the award is not challenged by the respondent No. 2 corporation the Court would refrain itself in further examining the award from aforesaid view point. 17.1 However, it is appropriate and necessary to mention that the reasons in light of which the Court recorded the conclusion about breach of Section 25F are not coming out from the award. 18. 17.1 However, it is appropriate and necessary to mention that the reasons in light of which the Court recorded the conclusion about breach of Section 25F are not coming out from the award. 18. There is nothing on record to clarify as to whether before forwarding the retrenchment order and retrenchment compensation to the petitioners by registered post, the said order was sought to be served by the respondent No. 1 Bedi Gram Panchayat to the petitioners in person or not. Any discussion or any conclusion on this count is not recorded in the award. 19. It appears that having regard to the facts discussed above viz. "(a) illegal - or in any case irregular - appointment, (b) No vacancy, No sanctioned post, (c) No evidence and No clarify about date of joining and/or date of birth of the petitioners, (d) the date of joining mentioned in the statement (page 52) does not appear to be correct as it would mean that petitioners were employed when he/they were minor, (e) retrenchment order and compensation were forwarded to them by post, learned Court did not consider it appropriate to pass order directing the corporation to reinstate the petitioners and that the Court instead, considered it appropriate to grant lump sum compensation. Therefore, grievance of the petitioners against the learned Labour Court's decision declining relief for reinstatement does not warrant any interference and said contention is not sustainable and deserves to be rejected and is accordingly rejected." 20. In view of this Court learned Labour Court has not committed any error in directing the corporation to pay lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement. 21. The foregoing discussion leads to the matter/issue of quantification of lumpsum compensation. Learned Labour Court has awarded Rs. 25,000/- as lumpsum compensation. 22. On this count learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the amount awarded towards lump sum compensation is very less amount. He submitted that in other cases the learned Labour Court awarded 20% back wages whereas in present case only Rs. 25,000/- is awarded as lump sum compensation in respect of both the workmen. 22.1 Learned advocate for the petitioners thus, sought to compare the case of present petitioners with the case of petitioners in other cases. He submitted that in other cases the learned Labour Court awarded 20% back wages whereas in present case only Rs. 25,000/- is awarded as lump sum compensation in respect of both the workmen. 22.1 Learned advocate for the petitioners thus, sought to compare the case of present petitioners with the case of petitioners in other cases. However, in view of the earlier discussed disputed issues of fact i.e. age of the petitioners and date of joining in the service (which would also raise disputed issues with regard to total length of service of the petitioners) etc. the cases of present petitioners are not comparable with the said other cases. 22.2 However, having regard to the discussion by learned Labour Court in the last sub-paragraph of paragraph No. 20 of the award it appears that if the amount towards lump sum compensation is enhanced from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- then it would serve the interest of justice and that amount would be sufficient and proper lump sum compensation for the petitioners. 23. In the facts and circumstances of the case it is appropriate to modify the awards and amount of compensation to Rs. 30,000/- each in view of the fact that the amount of Rs. 25,000/- as lumpsum compensation also not paid to the concerned persons. Hence the award dated 23.5.2013 passed in Reference (L.C.J.) No. 158/03 and 158/03 by the Court of Ld. Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 1, Jamnagar, are modified to the extent that the petitioners are entitled to get Rs. 30,000/- each as lump sum compensation. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Accordingly the petitions are disposed of. Orders accordingly.