JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. In this group of petitions the petitioners have brought under challenge identical awards dated 19.7.2004 passed by learned Labour Court whereby learned Labour Court rejected the reference filed by the petitioners herein. 2. The facts involved in present case and the grounds on which the awards are challenged are similar. 3. Ms. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners has made common and similar submissions against the awards and Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondent employer has also made common submissions. Therefore captioned petitions are decided by this common judgment/order. 4. So far as factual background is concerned it has emerged from the awards and the submissions by learned advocates for the parties that the concerned 3 workmen raised industrial dispute against alleged termination. The dispute raised by the petitioners was referred for adjudication to learned Labour Court at Surendranagar vide order dated 28.9.2000 passed by appropriate Government. During the proceedings before learned Labour Court the petitioners filed their statement of claim and alleged, inter alia, that they were employed by the respondent employer and since many years they were working with the respondent and at the relevant time they were paid salary @ 5.50 per day. The petitioners alleged that they were engaged in road section of Road and Building Department of the panchayat and the Deputy Executive Engineer terminated their service by oral order on 5.2.1996. The petitioners also alleged that though they demanded reinstatement, by serving notice the respondent did not reinstate them and instead they were informed that when the panchayat receives grant, the work will restart and at that time they will be engaged. It was also alleged by the petitioners that by making such excuse the officer did not allow them to report for work and on 5.2.1996 the were informed that their service are terminated. It was alleged that they were being stopped from reporting duty from 1.1.1987 and they were not engaged from 1.1.1987 until 4.2.1996 and every time when they would report for work they were informed that they will be engaged after grant is received. The petitioners also alleged that when the officer informed them on 5.2.1996 that their service are terminated any notice was not issued nor salary in lieu of notice was paid and retrenchment compensation was also not paid. The petitioners also alleged that when the officer informed them on 5.2.1996 that their service are terminated any notice was not issued nor salary in lieu of notice was paid and retrenchment compensation was also not paid. According to the petitioners any opportunity of hearing was also not granted and their service were illegally and arbitrarily terminated. 5. Though learned labour Court had issued notice to the respondent to file written statement/reply in response to the statement of claim filed by the petitioners, the respondent did not care to file any reply. Ultimately, learned Labour Court proceeded to accept on record the evidence by the petitioners. The petitioners filed affidavits in lieu of Examination-in-Chief which were accepted on record at exh. 12 to exh. 14. Thereafter, the petitioners declared that they did not want to examine any other witness or did not want to place any other evidence on record. After the stage of evidence of the petitioners was concluded the respondent did not lead any evidence, either documentary or oral. Ultimately learned Labour Court passed order closing the stage of evidence for the respondent employer and the cases were scheduled for hearing the submissions. At the time when the learned Labour Court took up the matter for hearing the submissions by the contesting parties no one appeared on behalf of the respondent employer. The representative of the concerned workman completed his submissions. Thereafter learned Labour Court examined the evidence on record and the submissions by the representative of the petitioners and passed award dated 19.7.2004 which is impugned in present petition. 6. It is pertinent that even in absence of any reply and any evidence of the respondent and without any submission by respondent, the petitioners could not prove their allegations and could not make out any case against the respondent and the learned Labour Court reached to the conclusion that the petitioners failed to establish the allegation and even the claim that they were employed by the respondent and/or that they had worked for 240 days in preceding 12 months or even the date when their service were terminated. 7. Having reached to the conclusion that the petitioners failed to establish any relevant fact the learned Labour Court rejected the reference. The petitioner felt aggrieved by the award rejecting the reference and preferred present petition. 8. Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate has entered appearance for the respondent employer. 7. Having reached to the conclusion that the petitioners failed to establish any relevant fact the learned Labour Court rejected the reference. The petitioner felt aggrieved by the award rejecting the reference and preferred present petition. 8. Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate has entered appearance for the respondent employer. Though the respondent employer has entered appearance through advocate, any affidavit opposing the petition is not filed. Thus, the facts recorded by the learned Labour Court in the awards, more particularly the fact that the respondent employer did not even file written statement and also did not lead any evidence either documentary or oral and even at the time of hearing the submissions of contesting parties no one appeared on behalf of the respondent employer, are not disputed and denied. 9. In this background learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the learned Labour Court has committed error in exercising jurisdiction and has also committed error in rejecting the reference cases. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the learned Labour Court has committed error in rejecting the reference and denying the relief to the petitioners. She also submitted that the learned Labour Court committed error in holding that the petitioners failed to establish any relevant fact. On this count she submitted that the petitioners had filed application requesting the learned Labour Court to direct the respondent employer to place relevant material/documents on record however the respondent employer failed to place any evidence and that therefore the case of the petitioners should have been believed. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the respondent may be directed to reinstate the petitioners with backwages. 10. Learned advocate for the respondent, in absence of any written statement and in absence of any documentary or oral evidence on record could not put forward submission with regard to the factual aspects. Learned advocate for the respondent could not and did not make any submission other than stating that learned Labour Court has not committed any error in passing impugned awards and rejecting the reference. 11. I have considered the submissions by learned advocate for the petitioners and the submissions by learned advocate for the respondent. I have also considered the material available on record of present petition. 11. I have considered the submissions by learned advocate for the petitioners and the submissions by learned advocate for the respondent. I have also considered the material available on record of present petition. 11.1 Along with memo of petition the petitioners have placed on record copy of award impugned in the petition and copy of the statement of claim which appears to have filed in or after January 2001 and copy of affidavit made by the concerned workman in lieu of Examination-in-Chief and copy of the application filed by the petitioners calling upon employer to place on record the wage register for the period from January 1968 to December 1987 and attendance register for the period from January 1968 to December 1987 and the bonus register [(c) register] (period not mentioned) as well as privilege/earn leave register (period not mentioned) and the seniority list of the employees for the period from January 1968 to August 2001. 11.2 On examination of the record it has noticed that the petitioners- workmen claimed that in the statement of claim filed in or after January 2001 they were working with the respondent employer since last 15 years in the road section of Road and Building Department of the respondent employer and that they were employed at Saila section of Limbdi sub-division and that at the relevant time their salary was paid at Rs. 5.50 per day. The workmen also alleged that they were required to work from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. and their service were illegally and arbitrarily terminated from 5.2.1996. In the affidavit the petitioners claimed that they had served notice dated 22.2.1996 instructing employer to reinstate them however, the respondent did not reinstate them. Except said averments any other details are not mentioned by the petitioners in their statement of claim. It is also noticed that exact date on which the petitioners joined service of the respondent employer is not mentioned and in vague manner it is mentioned that they were working with the respondent employer since last 15 years. Subsequently, the petitioners filed affidavit in lieu of Examination-in-Chief. In the affidavit also the petitioners claimed, without mentioning the date of joining the service with the respondent employer that they were working with the respondent employer since last 15 years and at the relevant time their salary was Rs. Subsequently, the petitioners filed affidavit in lieu of Examination-in-Chief. In the affidavit also the petitioners claimed, without mentioning the date of joining the service with the respondent employer that they were working with the respondent employer since last 15 years and at the relevant time their salary was Rs. 5.50 per month and they were required to work from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.. The petitioners claimed that they worked at different places where the work of road construction was undertaken i.e. villages Chada, Nagarka, Lochandara etc. 11.3 In one of the affidavits the concerned workman (i.e. Mr. Kalyanbhai) claimed that he had joined service in January 1961 and he worked up to 1986. He claimed that from 1987 the respondent stopped engaging the claimants/workmen though they continued to report for duty. The claimants also claimed that from 1987 to 4.2.1996 they were not engaged though they were reporting for duty the muster clerk used to inform them that the work will start when the grant comes and at that time they will be engaged. However, from 1987 to 1996 they were not engaged and on 5.2.1996 they were informed that their service are terminated. The concerned workmen also alleged in the affidavit that subsequently other persons were engaged by the respondent employer. In their affidavit the claimants alleged breach of Section 25F, Section 25G and Section 25H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 11.4 Except said details any other facts or details are not mentioned in the affidavit. Learned Labour Court considered said statement of claim and the affidavit filed by the petitioners as well as the application which was filed by the petitioners calling upon the employer to place on record the documents mentioned in the application demanding production of documents. Learned Labour Court also considered the decision by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadim. 11.5 After examining the material available on record learned Labour Court reached to the finding that the petitioners - claimants failed to establish any relevant fact. Learned Labour Court also considered the decision by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadim. 11.5 After examining the material available on record learned Labour Court reached to the finding that the petitioners - claimants failed to establish any relevant fact. Learned Labour Court also recorded specific findings of fact that (a) the petitioners - claimants did not even claim or assert that they had worked for 240 days during 12 months preceding the date when their service were allegedly terminated by oral order; (b) The petitioners - claimants failed to establish that they had worked for 240 days during 12 months preceding the date when their service were allegedly terminated by oral order; (c) that the reference was hit by vice of inordinate delay and therefore reference was not maintainable and did not deserve to be entertained on merits inasmuch as the petitioners claim that they were not engaged from 1987 and though they continued report for work until February 1997 they were not engaged during said period from 1987 to February 1996 and that with such allegation the dispute was raised in 1996 (d) the petitioners failed to place on record any documents or any material or any evidence of whatsoever nature to establish that they were ever engaged by the respondent employer (e) that the petitioners - claimants merely placed on record an affidavit, however, any material/document to support the statements made in the affidavit were not placed on record by any petitioner - claimant (f) that the petitioners failed to establish, with aid of any material that they had been appointed and employed by the respondent and they had continuously worked with the respondent (g) that the petitioners - claimants demanded production of muster roll, attendance register, etc. for the period from 1968-1987, however, such demand was made without even prima facie establishing the fact that they were ever employed by the respondent (h) that even according to the petitioners - claimants, they were not engaged from 1987, however, any action were not taken by the petitioners - claimants from 1987 to February, 1996 (j) that when the petitioner failed to even claim/assert and to even prima facie establish that they had worked for 240 days in 12 months preceding the date on which their service was allegedly terminated, the obligation to comply the condition under Section 25F viz. to pay compensation and other conditions, did not arise. 12. Having reached to such conclusion and findings of fact, more particularly after having specifically recorded the finding that the petitioners - claimants did not place any material or any document or any evidence of whatsoever nature to even prima facie establish that they were ever employed and engaged by the respondent, the learned Labour Court also reached to the conclusion that the petitioners - claimants failed to establish breach of any statutory provision and that even if it was assumed that the petitioners - claimants had worked with the respondents, they were discontinued from 1987, and that therefore, the dispute which was raised in 1996 for which reference came to be made in 2000, was not maintainable and did not deserve to be entertained. 12.1 Consequently, the learned Labour Court passed the impugned award and rejected the reference cases. 12.2 When the observations and findings and conclusions recorded by the learned Labour Court are examined, it emerges that in absence of any material to support any allegation by the petitioners - claimants, the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court and the decision to reject the reference cannot be faulted. 12.3 The decision of not entertaining the reference with regard to the allegation that the respondent discontinued the engagement/service of the petitioners - claimants right from 1987 and in absence of any action from 1987 until 1996, there is no justification to interfere with the award passed by the learned Labour Court. 12.4 Any material irregularity or any error of jurisdiction or any error of law is not established from the impugned award. The petitioners failed to make out any case against the impugned award. Therefore, the petitions do not deserve to be entertained. In the result, the petitions fail and deserve to be rejected and are accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. Orders accordingly.