JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Japee, learned advocate for the petitioner-workman and Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate for Mr. Mushaw, learned advocate for the respondent. 2. In this group of petitions, Special Civil Application No. 9202 of 2011 is filed by the transport service who has challenged the award dated 29.06.2010, passed by learned Labouar Court, Ahmedabad, in Reference (L.C.A.) No. 1086 of 2002, whereas Special Civil Application No. 5680 of 2011 and 5849 of 2011 to 5863 of 2011 are filed by the workmen. The workmen were the claimants before the learned Labour Court and above mentioned reference i.e. (L.C.A.) No. 1086 of 2002. 3. The workmen have challenged the award so far as and to the extent by which the learned Labour Court has, even after holding that transport service's action is illegal and in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as "the Act") not granted reinstatement and/or back-wages and instead allowed the transport service to retrench the workmen by paying compensation and benefits in accordance with Section 25F of the Act. The transport service has challenged the very same award so far as and to the extent, the learned Court has directed AMTS to pay compensation and other allowance in accordance with Section 25F of the Act. 4. The facts involved in and leading to the submissions of this group of petitions are almost similar. The issues involved in this group of petitions are also almost similar and identical. Learned advocates for the workmen and transport service in all petitions have put forward common and similar submissions in respect of all petitions. In this view of the matter, this group of petitions decided by this common judgment. 5. The workmen, who were claimants before the learned Labour Court are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as the petitioners for all petitions and the transport service is referred to as the respondent. 6. Before the service of the petitioners-workmen, came to be terminated on and from 18.07.2002, they were working as Watchman (Security Guard) with the respondent-transport service. Upon being abruptly terminated from the service, the petitioners-workmen raised industrial dispute against the respondent-transport service. The appropriate government referred the dispute for adjudication to the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad vide order of Reference dated 03.10.2002. The reference came to be registered as Reference (L.C.A.) No. 1086/2002. 7. Upon being abruptly terminated from the service, the petitioners-workmen raised industrial dispute against the respondent-transport service. The appropriate government referred the dispute for adjudication to the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad vide order of Reference dated 03.10.2002. The reference came to be registered as Reference (L.C.A.) No. 1086/2002. 7. During the proceedings of the said reference cases before the learned Labour Court, the petitioners-workmen filed their statement of claim wherein they claimed that they were employed by the respondent-transport service as Watchman/Security Guard and though they were permanent employees working with the respondent-transport service since many years, they were considered as Daily Wage employees and though they had worked for more than 240 days in each year and had also worked for not less than 900 days during 5 years, the respondent-transport service treated them as Daily Wager and the benefits of salary and other consequential benefits paid to the permanent workmen were denied to them and that their demand for revision in salary and other remedies was referred for adjudication by way of Reference (IT) No. 137/2001. They also alleged that during the pendency of the said Reference No. 137/2001, the respondent-transport service illegally, abruptly and arbitrarily terminated their service with effect from 18.07.2002. The respondent-workmen claimed that at the time when the respondent- transport service terminated their service, the transport service did not grant any opportunity of hearing and their services were terminated in violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner-workmen also claimed that while terminating their service on and from 18.07.2002, the respondent- transport service did not pay retrenchment compensation or any other amount in accordance with Section 25F of the Act and the transport service also did not comply the condition prescribed under Section 33 of the Act and their services came to be terminated in violation of Section 25F and Section 33 of the Act. The workmen also claimed that despite best efforts, they could not secure employment elsewhere and they are rendered unemployed in illegal and arbitrary manner by the transport service. On such premise, the petitioner-workmen claimed that they should be reinstated with consequential benefits. 7.1 The respondent- transport service filed its reply and denied the claims and allegations by the petitioner-workmen and opposed the reference. On such premise, the petitioner-workmen claimed that they should be reinstated with consequential benefits. 7.1 The respondent- transport service filed its reply and denied the claims and allegations by the petitioner-workmen and opposed the reference. The transport service alleged that the claimant-workmen, who are working with the transport service on Daily Wage basis and that due to continuous reduction in work and for want of sufficient work, the petitioner-workmen were rendered surplus. The respondent- transport service also claimed that it did not have sufficient quantum of work to offer to permanent employees, and that therefore, there was no need or justification to continue the employees working on Daily Wage basis since the respondent- transport service was obliged to pay ideal wages to the permanent workmen, it was neither practical nor feasible to continue to bear financial burden in respect of the persons engaged on Daily Wage basis. The respondent-transport service also claimed that as against the schedule of about 750 buses, at the relevant time, it had schedule of only 350-400 buses, and therefore, in view of the non-availability of work, the petitioner workmen were terminated. The respondent transport service further claimed that since the petitioner-workmen were engaged as and they were working as Daily Wage employees, they have no right to claim work, and that therefore, they were not entitled for retrenchment compensation because provision under Section 25F would not be applicable or attracted in case of employees engaged and working on Daily Wage basis. On such premise, the respondent- transport service disputed and denied the claim of the workmen and opposed the reference. 8. During the proceedings before the learned Labour Court, deposition of concerned workmen were recorded and the petitioner-workmen placed on record about 58 documents (under list of documents Exh. 8) including the identity card, the letter issued at the time when they were engaged, the attendance card for the month of July, 2002, provident fund receipts, pay-slips, the medical service card etc. 9. The deposition of the concerned workmen were recorded at Exh. 12 to 24 and Exh. 30. On behalf of the transport service examined one witness whose deposition came to be recorded at Exh. 34. 9. The deposition of the concerned workmen were recorded at Exh. 12 to 24 and Exh. 30. On behalf of the transport service examined one witness whose deposition came to be recorded at Exh. 34. 9.1 After the stage of pleading and evidence was completed the learned labour Court heard submissions on behalf of the claimant workmen and the opponent transport service and after considering the arguments of the contested parties and after taking into account material on record learned labour Court passed order dated 29.6.2010 and partly allowed the reference by passing above mentioned directions. 10. The petitioner transport service and the respondent workmen both felt aggrieved by the said award and the directions. Consequently the opponent transport service filed writ petition against the said award dated 29.6.2010 which is registered as Special Civil Application No. 9202 of 2011 and the workmen filed petitions being Special Civil Application No. 5680 of 2011, Special Civil Application No. 5849 of 2011 to Special Civil Application No. 5863 of 2011. 11. Mr. Japee, learned advocate for the workmen submitted that the learned Labour Court has recorded findings of the fact that each workman had worked for not less than 240 days during each year and also during preceding 12 months and that at the time when the services of the workmen were terminated the petitioner transport service did not pay retrenchment compensation, notice pay and other amount payable according to Section 25F of the Act. 12. Learned advocate for the workmen also claimed that the transport service terminated services of the workmen without granting opportunity of hearing and without following procedure prescribed by law and without complying requirement under Section 25F and 33 of the Act. Learned advocate workmen submitted that when the learned labour Court reached to the conclusion that the concerned workmen had worked for not less than 240 days in preceding 12 months and also during each year and when the learned labour Court also found that at the time when the services of the workmen were terminated retrenchment compensation was not paid then the learned Labour Court ought to have passed directions to reinstate the workmen and to pay backwages instead learned Labour Court passed impugned award allowing the transport service to make payment of retrenchment and to pay other amount as required by Section 25F of the Act. According to the learned advocate for the workmen the said directions are unjust, unreasonable and even passed by irregular exercise of jurisdiction. Learned advocate for the workmen submitted that the direction may be set aside and the petitioner transport service may be directed to reinstate the workmen with backwages. 13. Mr. Chauhan and Mr. Munshaw, learned advocates for the transport service also assailed the very same award which the workmen have challenged. Learned advocate for the transport service submitted that the learned Labour Court has committed error by directing the transport service to pay retrenchment compensation. Learned advocate for the transport service submitted that due to nonavailability of work the transport service was left with no alternative but to terminate the service of the workmen. He also submitted that the workmen were engaged on daily wage basis and their engagement depended on availability of work. He emphasized that the workmen were engaged and working as daily wage employees and that therefore they had no right to claim work and consequently they were not entitled for compensation under Section 25F of the Act. Learned advocate for the transport service submitted that in the facts of the case the learned Labour Court has committed error in holding that the transport service committed breach of Section 25F when it terminated service of the workmen. 14. During his submission learned advocate for the transport service sought to contend that the petitioner workmen were engaged as "Badli Workers". The learned advocate for the workmen relied on the written statement filed by the transport service submitted that before learned Court it was claimed that the workmen are working on daily wages basis and any contention on the ground that the workmen were "Badli Workers" are not raised in the written statement or during the hearing any evidence to establish such claim was not placed before the learned Labour Court. 14.1 Learned advocate for the transport service submitted that the transport service was paying idle wages to other terminated employees and therefore it was not possible for the transport service to bear financial burden in respect of daily wage employee and therefore it was constrained to terminate the workmen. 14.1 Learned advocate for the transport service submitted that the transport service was paying idle wages to other terminated employees and therefore it was not possible for the transport service to bear financial burden in respect of daily wage employee and therefore it was constrained to terminate the workmen. Learned advocate for the transport service submitted that in case of daily wage workers the condition prescribed under Section 25F of the Act will not be applicable and therefore there was no obligation on part of the transport service to comply Section 25F of the Act and to pay compensation to the workmen. Learned advocate for the transport service submitted that in the facts of the case the conclusion based on the premise that the transport service committed breach of Section 25F in incorrect and for the same reason direction to pay retrenchment compensation and other payment payable under Section 25F is arbitrary and deserves to be set aside. 15. I have learned advocate for the petitioners and learned advocate for the respondent and also examined the material on record of this group of petitions. I have also considered the rival submissions by learned advocate for the contesting parties. 15.1 At the outset it would be appropriate to mention some undisputed facts. 15.2 It is not in dispute that the respondent transport service terminated service of the workmen w.e.f. 18.7.2002. It is also not in dispute that the workmen had been working with the respondent transport service as Watchman/Security Guard for about 5 years before the transport service terminated their service. It is also not in dispute that at the time when the transport service terminated service of the some of the workmen it did not pay retrenchment compensation or any other amount e.g. notice pay, retrenchment compensation etc. to the workmen. It is also not in dispute that the service of the concerned workmen was not terminated on ground of misconduct or on account of continuous absent without leave or on account of resignation by the workmen. 15.3 It is also not in dispute that in the written statement filed by the transport service any contention on the ground that the workmen had not worked for 240 days in preceding 12 months or in any year during their tenure with the respondent transport service is not raised. 15.3 It is also not in dispute that in the written statement filed by the transport service any contention on the ground that the workmen had not worked for 240 days in preceding 12 months or in any year during their tenure with the respondent transport service is not raised. It is also not in dispute that the transport service neither urged nor proved that the workmen had not worked for 240 days. It is also not in dispute that at the time when the transport service terminated service of the workmen it did not issue any termination/retrenchment order and service was terminated abruptly and by oral direction on and from 18.7.2000. 15.4 It is also not in dispute that the names of the petitioner workmen were borne out on Attendance Register and Pay Register and they were being paid Bonus, P.F. and they were also entitled for earned leave. 15.5 In light of the above mentioned undisputed facts, more particularly in light of the undisputed fact that at the time when the transport service terminated service of the workmen it did not pay retrenchment compensation to the concerned workmen though the fact that they had worked for 240 days was not in dispute (actually it was admitted by the witness of the transport service during his deposition before learned labour Court) and in light of the said undisputed fact the learned labour Court reached the findings of the fact and recorded the conclusion that the workmen had fulfilled condition required for attracting section 25F of the Act however, the respondent transport service did not comply the obligation cast on the employer by section 25F of the Act. 15.6 During the hearing of present petitions any material from the record is not brought to the notice of the Court to demonstrate and establish that the findings of fact recorded by the learned labour Court viz. that the workmen had worked for 240 days in preceding 12 months and that the transport service had not even urged or claimed that the workmen had not worked for 240 days and that despite such fact the transport service did not pay retrenchment compensation to the workmen at the time when their service was terminated, are contrary to evidence on record. 15.7 Thus, what emerges is the position that the transport service was obliged to comply requirement under Section 25F or had not complied the said requirement and terminated service of the workmen without complying requirement prescribed by Section 25F and therefore it had committed breach of Section 25F while terminating the service of the workmen. 15.8 Once such conclusion is reached and once it is found that the said conclusion recorded by the learned labour Court is not incorrect or it is not perverse then as corollary direction to reinstate the workmen would follow, unless specific and compelling circumstances are completed and proved by the employer. In such situation the Court may mould the relief and grant appropriate lumpsum compensation in lieu of direction to reinstate the workmen. 15.9 In present case it is proved and established that the retrenchment of the workmen was illegal and in violation of Section 25F of the Act. 15.10 The contention of the workmen that since the workmen were engaged as daily wage employees the provision under Section 25F would not be attracted and applied to their case is misconceived and deserves to be rejected. 15.11 The Act does not classify or categorize the workmen in different categories like casual workman, daily wage workman, ad-hoc workman etc. 15.12 Section 25F postulates that any workman who worked for 240 days in preceding 12 months cannot be retrenched without payment of compensation at the time of termination of service. Under the circumstances even the employee who is engaged on daily wages basis and worked for 240 days during period of 12 months preceding the date on which he is relieved from service or sought to be relieved from service, shall be entitled for retrenchment compensation. 16. Under the circumstances, when the transport service undisputedly did not make payment of retrenchment compensation to the workmen, then, even if it is assumed that the workmen were working on daily wage basis, the action of the transport service would still amount to action in violation of Section 25F of the Act and the workmen whose service were terminated would be entitled for compensation in accordance with Section 25F of the Act. 16.1 In present case another aspect is also required to be taken into account viz. 16.1 In present case another aspect is also required to be taken into account viz. that at the time when the transport service terminated service of the workmen it had not prepared seniority list in accordance with Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes Gujarat Rules, 1961. The said provision prescribes that seniority list of all employees should be invited on the notice board 7 days before the date on which retrenchment is to be effected. In present case said requirement was not complied. 16.2 Thus, considering from any perspective, the conclusion by learned labour Court that the termination of the petitioner workmen would amount to retrenchment and the conclusion that the retrenchment of the workmen was in violation of Section 25F and Section 25G of the Act cannot be faulted. 17. Having reached such conclusion, learned labour Court was not justified in passing impugned direction whereby the Court allowed the transport service to retrench the workmen. 17.1 Learned labour Court has, by impugned award, directed that the transport service should pay retrenchment compensation payable under Section 25F of the Act to the concerned workmen for total number of years of service of the concerned workmen. 17.2 The learned Labour Court does not have any jurisdiction to pass such direction i.e. the learned Court has no jurisdiction to permit the employer to retrospectively regularize the illegal and defective retrenchment. The impugned order amounts to and/or it will have effect of retrospectively regularize illegal and defective retrenchment. 18. Under the circumstances the workmens' challenge against the AMTS deserves to be rejected. 19. It is not the case of the transport service that after it terminated service of the workmen it had not retained any Watchman/Security Guard in its service and/or that as of now there is no work for any Watchman/Security Guard and/or that now there are no Watchman/Security Guard in its service. 20. The fact remains that the establishment of the AMTS provides transport service and total number of depots may have reduced but it is not the case that the establishment is completely closed down and the activities have come to an end. 21. 20. The fact remains that the establishment of the AMTS provides transport service and total number of depots may have reduced but it is not the case that the establishment is completely closed down and the activities have come to an end. 21. Besides this, it has come on record and it is referred to in the impugned award also that the transport service introduced a policy (which is, still in force) which provides that employees engaged on casual or daily wage basis will be entitled for regularization and will be granted regularization in service on completion of service of 900 days in 5 years. 22. In present case the workmen have claimed and asserted that they had not only worked for 240 days but they had completed 900 days of service in 5 years before they were retrenched. 23. So far as workmen's contention on the ground that at the time retrenchment a dispute by way of and in form of a Reference i.e. Reference IT No. 137 of 2001 was pending is concerned, learned labour Court has committed error in observing that the workmen failed to prove that the said reference was pending at the relevant time. It is pertinent that actually it was not even the case of the transport service that the said reference was not pending at the time when the workmen were retrenched. It is give out (at the time of hearing of the petition) by learned Counsel for the transport service that the said reference was pending in 2002 when the retrenchment was effected. 24. Under the circumstances the procedure prescribed under Section 33 of the Act ought to have been followed in view of the fact that the demand/dispute referred for adjudication by the said reference was raised by and on behalf of present petitioners- workmen. 25. Even if the said aspect is not taken into account, it has emerged from the undisputed facts that at the relevant time retrenchment compensation was not paid and the procedure prescribed under Rule 81 was not followed and in light of said fact it is established that the retrenchment disputed in present proceedings was illegal and in violation of Section 25F. 26. In this view of the matter, the direction to reinstate the workmen with consequential benefits should follow. 27. 26. In this view of the matter, the direction to reinstate the workmen with consequential benefits should follow. 27. In this context reference may be made to the decision in case of Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidhyalaya, (2013) 10 SCC 324 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court observed in paragraph No. 38.1 to 38.6 that:- "38.1 In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule. 38.2 The aforesaid rule is subject to the rider that while deciding the issue of back wages, the adjudicating authority or the Court may take into consideration the length of service of the employee/workman, the nature of misconduct, if any, found proved against the employee/workman, the financial condition of the employer and similar other factors. 38.3 Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then it has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman was gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she was drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was not employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments. 38.4 The cases in which the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal exercises power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and finds that even though the enquiry held against the employee/workman is consistent with the rules of natural justice and/or certified standing orders, if any, but holds that the punishment was disproportionate to the misconduct found proved, then it will have the discretion not to award full back wages. However, if the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal finds that the employee or workman is not at all guilty of any misconduct or that the employer had foisted a false charge, then there will be ample justification for award of full back wages. 38.5 The cases in which the competent Court or Tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimizing the employee or workman, then the concerned Court or Tribunal will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. In such cases, the superior Courts should not exercise power under Articles 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc., merely because there is a possibility of forming a different opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer's obligation to pay the same. The Courts must always be kept in view that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service, the wrongdoer is the employer and sufferer is the employee/workman and there is no justification to give premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/workman his dues in the form of full back wages. 38.6 In a number of cases, the superior Courts have interfered with the award of the primary adjudicatory authority on the premise that finalization of litigation has taken long time ignoring that in majority of cases the parties are not responsible for such delays. Lack of infrastructure and manpower is the principal cause for delay in the disposal of cases. For this the litigants cannot be blamed or penalised. It would amount to grave injustice to an employee or workman if he is denied back wages simply because there is long lapse of time between the termination of his service and finality given to the order of reinstatement. The Courts should bear in mind that in most of these cases, the employer is in an advantageous position vis-à-vis the employee or workman. He can avail the services of best legal brain for prolonging the agony of the sufferer, i.e., the employee or workman, who can ill afford the luxury of spending money on a lawyer with certain amount of fame. He can avail the services of best legal brain for prolonging the agony of the sufferer, i.e., the employee or workman, who can ill afford the luxury of spending money on a lawyer with certain amount of fame. Therefore, in such cases it would be prudent to adopt the course suggested in Hindustan Tin Works (P) Limited v. Employees." 27.1 A profitable reference may also be had to the decision in case of Surendra Kumar Verma v. the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court ( AIR 1981 SC 422 ) wherein Hon'ble Apex Court observed, inter alia, that:-- "6. We do not propose to refer to the cases arising under section 33 and 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act or to cases arising out of references under sections 10 and 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Nor do we propose to engage ourselves in the unfruitful task of answering the question whether the termination of the services of a workman in violation of the provisions of S. 25F is void ab initio or merely invalid and inoperative, even if it is possible to discover some razor's edge distinction between the Latin 'Void ab initio' and the Anglo-Saxon 'invalid and inoperative'. Semantic luxuries are misplaced in the interpretation of 'bread and butter' statutes. Welfare statutes must, of necessity, receive a broad interpretation. Where legislation is designed to give relief against certain kinds of 795 mischief, the Court is not to make inroads by making etymological excursions. 'Void ab initio'. 'invalid and inoperative' or call it what you will, the workmen and the employer are primarily concerned with the consequence of striking down the order of termination of the services of the workmen. Plain common sense dictates that the removal of an order terminating the services of workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the workmen. It is as if the order has never been and so it must ordinarily lead to back wages too. But there may be exceptional circumstances which make it impossible or wholly inequitable vis-à-vis the employer and workmen to direct reinstatement with full back wages. For instance, the industry might have closed down or might be in severe financial doldrums: the workmen concerned might have secured better or other employment elsewhere and so on. In such situations, there is a vestige of discretion left in the Court to make appropriate consequential orders. For instance, the industry might have closed down or might be in severe financial doldrums: the workmen concerned might have secured better or other employment elsewhere and so on. In such situations, there is a vestige of discretion left in the Court to make appropriate consequential orders. The Court may deny the relief of reinstatement where reinstatement is impossible because the industry has closed down. The Court may deny the relief of award of full back wages where that would place an impossible burden on the employer. In such and other exceptional cases the Court may mould the relief, but, ordinarily the relief to be awarded must be reinstatement with full back wages. That relief must be awarded where no special impediment in the way of awarding the relief is clearly shown. True, occasional hardship may be caused to an employer but we must remember that, more often than not. comparatively far greater hardship is certain to be caused to the workmen if the relief is denied than to the employer if the relief is granted." 27.2 It would be appropriate to also refer to the decision in case of Narotam Chopra v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, 1989 Supp. (2) SCC 97 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court observed, inter alia, that:-- "3. On the admitted facts, the findings recorded by the Labour Court clearly show that the appellants services were terminated in violation of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is now well settled that if the services of an employee are terminated in violation of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the order of termination is rendered ab initio void and the employee would be entitled to continuity of service along with his backwages, see Gammon India Ltd. v. Niranjan Dass. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court and modify the Award of the Labour Court and we further direct that the appellant is entitled to reinstatement with full backwages and other allowances. The appellant is entitled to his costs which is quantified at Rs. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court and modify the Award of the Labour Court and we further direct that the appellant is entitled to reinstatement with full backwages and other allowances. The appellant is entitled to his costs which is quantified at Rs. 2,000/-." 27.3 Thereafter recently in the decision in case between Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi v. M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd. (AIR 2014 SC 2258) wherein Hon'ble Apex Court observed, inter alia, that:-- "....Leaving aside the legal semantics, we have no hesitation to hold that termination of service of an employee by way of retrenchment without complying with the requirement of giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof and compensation in terms of Section 25F(a) and (b) has the effect of rendering the action of the employer as nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his service was not terminated." 28. In present case it is not the case of the transport service that the activity is completely closed or that it does not employ any employee, more particularly it does not employ any security guard/watchman at any establishment. Therefore following direction/order would serve interest of justice: The Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service is directed to pay 50% backwages to the concerned workmen along with all consequential benefits. The order of learned Labour Court to the aforesaid extent shall stand modified. The petitions filed by the workmen i.e. Special Civil Application No. 5680 of 2011, Special Civil Application No. 5849 of 2011 to Special Civil Application No. 5863 of 2011 are partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to that extent. The petition filed by Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service i.e. Special Civil Application No. 9202 of 2011 is rejected. Rule is discharged. Accordingly all the petitions are disposed of. Orders accordingly.