JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. In this group of petitions, the petitioner board has challenged separate but similar awards passed by the learned Labour Court, Rajkot whereby the learned Labour Court has directed the petitioner board to reinstate the respondent workmen on their original post with continuity of service, however, without backwages. 2. Appropriate government passed separate orders of reference referring the dispute raised by the respondent workmen. The said orders of reference were registered as Reference Case Nos. 817/91, 818/91, 37/92, 52/92, 53/92, 54/92 and 55/92. The concerned workmen in the said reference cases raised identical dispute against present petitioner board by making similar and identical allegations and prayed for similar and identical relief. The learned Labour Court decided the said reference cases by separate awards passed on different dates. The awards, though separate and passed on different dates, are almost similar inasmuch as in all awards, the learned Labour Court has reached to and recorded similar findings. The said findings have been recorded on the basis of and in light of the identical reasons and on the basis of such reasons and conclusions, identical directions have been passed in such separate awards. In this view of the matter, learned advocate for the petitioner board and the respondent workmen have, for their respective clients, urged common submissions. Therefore, these 9 petitions are decided by this common judgment. 3. The dispute raised by the workmen - claimants came to be referred for adjudication to the learned Labour Court, Rajkot. The claimants filed their respective statements of claim. In the statement of claim, the claimants alleged, inter alia, that they (except one workman) were engaged by the petitioner board with effect from September 1983. The respondent workmen claimed that their services were terminated w.e.f. 25.11.1988. They also alleged that their services were terminated without following procedure prescribed by law and that before terminating their services, the petitioner board had not paid retrenchment compensation or notice pay and had not conducted any enquiry and that, therefore, the action of the petitioner board terminating their services is illegal. Some of the respondent workmen claimed that they worked as Operator, whereas some other claimed that they worked as Lineman, Helper or Valveman. 4. Some of the respondent workmen claimed that they worked as Operator, whereas some other claimed that they worked as Lineman, Helper or Valveman. 4. The petitioner opposed the reference cases and denied the allegation by the claimants and claimed that by a notification dated 24.2.1975, the water supply and sewerage scheme for Jetpur area was assigned/transferred to the board. The petitioner board had to complete the scheme and on its completion, the scheme was to be transferred to Jetpur Nagarpalika. The petitioner board claimed that for the purpose of execution and completion of the said project/scheme, the claimants were engaged and their engagement was for the project and it was fixed term appointment. According to the petitioner it had complied the conditions prescribed under section 25F and the services of the claimants were terminated by way of retrenchment after following prescribed procedure and therefore, there is no illegality or arbitrariness and the learned Labour Court committed error in directing the petitioner board to reinstate the respondents - claimants on their original post with continuity of service. The Board also claimed that the work related to the scheme/project has come to an end and there is no post or vacancy. 5. According to the petitioner board, the claimants were engaged for work of project and for fixed period i.e. until completion of the project work. The petitioner board claimed that the scheme/project work was completed and came to an end in October/November 1988 and that, therefore, the tenure of the respondents also came to an end. Consequently, order dated 25.11.1988 relieving the respondents by way of retrenchment was passed. The petitioner board claimed that the relieving order dated 25.11.1988 along with the retrenchment compensation payable to each of the respondents was sought to be served personally to the respondents on 25.11.1988, however, the respondents - claimants refused to accept the same in person and that, therefore, the petitioner board had forwarded the retrenchment orders along with the cheques for the amount payable towards retrenchment compensation, notice pay and other dues to the respondents at the addresses available on record of the board, however, the respondents - claimants did not accept the registered post under which the retrenchment orders were forwarded. He also submitted that when the respondents were engaged on fixed term basis for the work of the scheme and when their services came to be terminated upon completion of the said scheme/project, the learned Labour Court ought not have directed the petitioner board to reinstate the respondents and to grant continuity of service. Learned advocate for the petitioner board submitted that the impugned award may be set aside and the direction to reinstate the respondents may be quashed. Learned advocate for the petitioner board further submitted that if the Court holds that the termination of the service of the respondents was not in accordance with law, then the relief may be modified. 6. Learned advocate for the respondent workmen submitted that the petitioner board terminated services of the respondents by way of retrenchment, however, at the time when the respondent workmen were discontinued, the petitioner board did not follow the procedure prescribed by law inasmuch as the petitioner board did not pay compensation in accordance with law and in the manner prescribed by law. Learned advocate for the workmen submitted that the petitioner board never served the orders to the respondents in person and did not offer the compensation and other amounts in person to the respondents and the claim that the amounts were offered in person and the retrenchment orders were sought to be served in person but the respondent workmen had refused, is incorrect and the petitioner board failed to establish the said fact before the learned Labour Court. It is also claimed that even according to the Board's claim the retrenchment order and the compensation were forwarded to the respondent workmen about two or three days after the date when the retrenchment was made effective. Meaning thereby the claim that the procedure prescribed by law was followed, is incorrect and unjustified and that, therefore, the retrenchment of the respondent workmen is defective and consequently, the learned Labour Court passed the awarding holding that the respondents are entitled for reinstatement. According to learned advocate for the respondent workmen, the award does not suffer from any infirmity and does not deserve to be set aside. 7. I have considered the submissions by learned advocate for the petitioner and the respondents and I have also considered the documents available on record and the observations and conclusions recorded by the learned Labour Court in the impugned award. 8. 7. I have considered the submissions by learned advocate for the petitioner and the respondents and I have also considered the documents available on record and the observations and conclusions recorded by the learned Labour Court in the impugned award. 8. There is no dispute between the parties, rather the Board has admitted that the services of the respondent workmen were terminated by way of retrenchment. On this count the board claimed that the scheme/project started in 1977. The scheme envisaged water supply facility for Jetpur and was named and described as 'Jetpur Water Supply Scheme'. According to the petitioner board, the said scheme/project was handed over for completing the project to the petitioner board w.e.f. 16.1.1983. The petitioner board claimed that it had engaged present respondents - claimants for carrying out and completing the said project and the claimants were engaged on temporary and fixed term basis, i.e. until the completion of the scheme/project. The petitioner board further claimed that the scheme/project was completed in 1986 and the petitioner board had addressed letter dated 7.11.1986 to Jetpur Nagarpalika to take over the possession and operation of the said scheme, however, at that time, the panchayat/nagarpalika filed civil suit against the petitioner board which was registered as Civil Suit No. 249 of 1986. In the said suit initially, an interim order was passed which came to be vacated on 22.3.1988. It is claimed by the petitioner board that it was in view of the suit proceeding instituted by the panchayat/nagarpalika and the interim order, that the petitioner board had continued to operate the scheme and the services of the respondents were not terminated, however, after the interim relief was vacated on 22.3.1988, the orders dated 25.11.1988 were passed and issued. 9. Under the circumstances the questions which arise are whether the provisions under Section 25Fwas followed at the relevant time or not? and if the prescribed procedure was not followed then whether the respondents are entitled for the relief granted by the learned labour Court or relief should be modified. 10. 9. Under the circumstances the questions which arise are whether the provisions under Section 25Fwas followed at the relevant time or not? and if the prescribed procedure was not followed then whether the respondents are entitled for the relief granted by the learned labour Court or relief should be modified. 10. So far as the factual backdrop is concerned the workmen have raised dispute as regards the petitioner's claim that (1) the persons were engaged only for project work and (2) in view of the interim relief granted in the suit the board was obliged to continue operation of the scheme/project and (3) retrenchment compensation was neither paid nor offered on 25.11.1988 when the petitioner retrenched and relieved the concerned workmen. 11. It has emerged from the record that the petitioner had not executed contract and/or had not issued any appointment letters containing condition or stipulation that the workmen were engaged on the project and for project work and until the work lasts and with completion of the work they will be relieved. 12. Thus, there was no intimation or information and knowledge to the concerned persons that they were employed for project work and their engagement was for fixed duration i.e. until the scheme/project work continues and their service will be terminated and their employment will expire on completion of the project. Any material to establish such intimation and knowledge to the concerned persons was not placed on record before the learned tribunal by the petitioner board. 13. In case of S.M. Nilajkar v. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka [ (2003) 4 SCC 27 ] Hon'ble Apex Court has observed and explained that: "13. The termination of service of a workman engaged in a scheme or project may not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of sub-clause (bb) subject to the following conditions being satisfied:-- (i) that the workman was employed in a project or scheme of temporary duration; (ii) the employment was on a contract, and not as a daily-wager simplicitor, which provided inter alia that the employment shall come to an end on the expiry of the scheme or project; and (iii) the employment came to an end simultaneously with the termination of the scheme or project and consistently with the terms of the contract. (iv) the workman ought to have been apprised or made aware of the abovesaid terms by the employer at the commencement of employment. (iv) the workman ought to have been apprised or made aware of the abovesaid terms by the employer at the commencement of employment. The engagement of a workman as a daily-wager does not by itself amount to putting the workman on notice that he was being engaged in a scheme or project which was to last only for a particular length of time or upto to the occurrence of some event, and therefore, the workman ought to know that his employment was short-lived. The contract of employment consciously entered into by the workman with the employer would result in a notice to the workman on the date of the commencement of the employment itself that his employment was short-lived and as per the terms of the contract the same was liable to termination on the expiry of the contract and the scheme or project coming to an end. The workman may not therefore complain that by the act of employer his employment was coming to an abrupt termination. To exclude the termination of a scheme or project employee from the definition of retrenchment it is for the employer to prove the abovesaid ingredients so as to attract the applicability of sub-clause (bb) abovesaid. In the case at hand, the respondent-employer has failed in alleging and proving the ingredients of sub-clause (bb), as stated hereinabove. All that has been proved is that the appellants were engaged as casual workers or daily-wagers in a project. For want of proof attracting applicability of sub-clause (bb), it has to be held that the termination of the services of the appellants amounted to retrenchment." 14. When the said test is applied in present case then the petitioner's contention fails. 15. The petitioner's said claim cannot be accepted in absence of any material which would establish that at the time when the concerned persons were engaged they were informed that their engagement would expire on completion of project. Therefore, it cannot be accepted or even assumed that the concerned persons were engaged only for project work. Hence, the contention and defence raised in light of clause (bb) of section 2(oo) is not accepted and is hereby rejected. 16. Therefore, it cannot be accepted or even assumed that the concerned persons were engaged only for project work. Hence, the contention and defence raised in light of clause (bb) of section 2(oo) is not accepted and is hereby rejected. 16. The question which would then arise is whether the petitioner's failure to establish that the concerned persons were engaged only for project, disentitles the board or wipes out its right in law to retrench its employee in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act. 16.1 The reply to the question would be in negative since law recognizes the employer's right to retrench its employee/s however it prescribes procedure for effecting retrenchment. 16.2 Section 25B, Section 25F, Section 25G and Section 25H prescribe the procedure for effecting retrenchment in cases where the total number of employees employed in the establishment is not more than 100. In cases where number of employees employed in the establishment is more than 100 then the provision under Chapter VB will be attracted. 16.3 In case of bona fide need, the employer, by diligently following said procedure, can effect retrenchment subject to the condition that the reason for retrenchment must be spelt out and such reason and retrenchment should be bona fide. 17. Now, therefore, the question to be addressed is whether procedure prescribed under above mentioned provisions was followed or not. 17.1 It is not in dispute that (a) the claimants had worked for 12 months (or more); and (b) the concerned persons had worked for more than 240 days in preceding 12 months. Therefore, section25F of the Act was attracted and was applicable. Section 25F prescribes procedure for payment of retrenchment compensation. The said section requires that the compensation calculated in accordance with section 25F must be paid "at the time of retrenchment" and the workmen shall not be retrenched until the compensation is paid. The expression "at the time of retrenchment" is crucial. If the compensation is paid at any time after the date when retrenchment becomes effective then such payment will not be considered valid and it will not amount to compliance of the condition under Section25F of the Act. 17.2 In present case it is not in dispute that the concerned workmen are retrenched w.e.f. 25.11.1988. If the compensation is paid at any time after the date when retrenchment becomes effective then such payment will not be considered valid and it will not amount to compliance of the condition under Section25F of the Act. 17.2 In present case it is not in dispute that the concerned workmen are retrenched w.e.f. 25.11.1988. Therefore the question is whether 60 days/90 days notice was served (or salary in lieu of such notice) and whether the Board paid the compensation to the concerned workmen before or on 25.11.1988. 17.3 So as to establish the compliance the petitioner has relied on the retrenchment orders and the rojkam which was prepared at the time when the orders were sought to be served to the concerned persons. The retrenchment order is dated 25.11.1988 and it is placed on record at Annexure-B page 19 and the rojkam is placed on record at Annexure-B (Colly) page 21. 17.4 On the strength of the said rojkam the board has alleged that it had offered the amount to the concerned workman in person on 25.11.1988 however, the concerned workmen, according to the Board, had refused to accept the amount/payment. The concerned workmen have disputed and denied the said claim of the board. In the deposition, one of the concerned persons (who was examined as witness) denied that the retrenchment orders and the amount were served/offered on 25.11.1988. Whereas one Mr. B.V. Pandya, who was examined as witness by the petitioner board said, in his deposition, that the retrenchment orders were sought to be served and the retrenchment compensation amount was offered to the concerned workman on 25.11.1998 however, they had not accepted the order and/or amount and therefore rojkam was drawn and thereafter the Board forwarded the drafts along with the order by R.P.A.D. to the concerned persons on 29.1.1988. Per contra, the workmen emphatically denied said claim of the Board. Mr. B.V. Parvada, one of the respondents asserted in his evidence that the registered post was not received and therefore, the question of accepting or refusing registered post or retrenchment order or amount did not arise and during his cross examination the said witness denied that the workmen had refused to accept the payment of compensation. According to the claimants the pre-condition was, in any case, not complied. The learned Labour Court has believed and accepted the evidence by the respondent workmen. 18. According to the claimants the pre-condition was, in any case, not complied. The learned Labour Court has believed and accepted the evidence by the respondent workmen. 18. In this view of the matter, unless it is established that the decision and conclusion by the learned Labour Court are perverse, i.e. this Court would not interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the learned Labour Court. 18.1 So as to support the claim that the amount was offered along with the retrenchment order on 25.11.1988, the petitioner board relied on the Rojkam allegedly drawn on 25.11.1988 and the board also relied on the envelopes which the petitioner board seems to have received back from the Postal Authority (which were placed on record before the learned Labour Court at Mark 42, i.e. Exh. 43). It is, however, relevant to mention that most of the envelopes which were forwarded by the petitioner board to the concerned respondents, were returned with Postal Authority's remark that for 7 days, the addressee was not available at the address mentioned therefore returned back and only on one envelope the Postal Authority's remark gives out that the addressee had refused to accept the cover. 18.2 Further, an important fact of the matter is that the retrenchment order and the amount (demand drafts) were forwarded to the concerned workmen by R.P.A.D. on 29.11.1988 (i.e. about 4 days after the date of retrenchment order) and not on the same day when the retrenchment became effective i.e. 25.11.1988. It is pertinent that the demand drafts were prepared and issued by the bank on 29.11.1988 and not on same day i.e. 25.11.1998 or even on 26.11.1998 or 27.11.1998 or 28.11.1998. 18.3 In this background the workmen claim that the action of the petitioner board viz. forwarding the retrenchment order and the compensation amount by registered post, is not in accordance with section25F of the Act and it does not amount to compliance of the condition prescribed under Section 25-F of the Act. On the other hand the petitioner board has sought to support its claim with the help of Rojkam said to have been drawn on 25.11.1988 which bear signatures of 4 officers of the board. Unfortunately, the learned Labour Court has not dealt with the said aspect and has not recorded any conclusion either accepting the petitioner's case or respondents' case. On the other hand the petitioner board has sought to support its claim with the help of Rojkam said to have been drawn on 25.11.1988 which bear signatures of 4 officers of the board. Unfortunately, the learned Labour Court has not dealt with the said aspect and has not recorded any conclusion either accepting the petitioner's case or respondents' case. 18.4 On this count it is pertinent to note that if the Board's said claim is not accepted, then, it would amount to non-compliance of the condition prescribed under section 25F which requires payment of compensation at the time when the retrenchment is effected and not at any subsequent point of time and the resultant effect would be that the termination of the respondents service shall have to be declared illegal and in violation of Section 25F of the Act. 18.5 Therefore, it becomes necessary to decide as to whether the petitioner Board established that the amount was offered on 25.11.1988 and the order were sought to be served on 25.11.1988, but the workmen had refused to accept. 18.6 So as to ascertain the said factual aspects i.e. it is necessary to take a look at the Rojkam. At first blush, it would appear that the petitioner Board had sought to serve the retrenchment orders and the compensation amount in person to the concerned respondents, however, on further and closer examination of the said Rojkam, what comes out is that separate Rojkam in respect of each of the concerned respondents was prepared and four witnesses had put their signatures on each Rojkam, however, it is pertinent that the Rojkam are cyclostyle Rojkam (not handwritten at the time when alleged development viz. workman's refusal to accept the orders and compensation occurred) and they have been prepared on the spot at the time when the order and amount were offered and allegedly refused by the workmen. On examination of the Rojkam it also comes out that it is printed and cyclostyle Rojkam with blanks which have been filled-up by mentioning the name of the person, the compensation amount, the rate of wages, etc. and the blanks have been filled up by hand written figures. Thus, it appears that the Rojkam were kept ready as if the corporation was aware that the concerned persons will not accept the orders and the amount. and the blanks have been filled up by hand written figures. Thus, it appears that the Rojkam were kept ready as if the corporation was aware that the concerned persons will not accept the orders and the amount. It is interesting and pertinent to note that as a part of the text of the Rojkam, it is mentioned in cyclostyle/printed form that the order and amounts were offered in person, but the persons refused to accept it. Ordinarily, an employer would keep ready the order and the receipt acknowledging the payment without mentioning either in the receipt or in the order that it was sought to be served but not accepted and if, on offer, the amount is not accepted, then, separate hand written remark would be put on the face of the receipt and/or on the face the order that when the order and the amount were offered the workmen refused to accept it. 18.7 On the other hand, even if it is assumed that the petitioner's claim with regard to its attempt to serve the retrenchment orders and the offer to pay compensation amount on 25.11.1988 are correct, then also the other substantive ground in light of which the learned Labour Court has declared the petitioner's action defective and unsustainable, viz. that the seniority list as contemplated under Rule 81 was not displayed/notified 7 days before 25.11.1988 would still survive and stare in the face of the petitioner. 19. In this background what is pertinent on this count is the claim of the workmen that 7 days before 25.11.1988 the seniority list was not prepared and notified by the petitioner corporation. 19.1 If this factual aspect is established then the issue as to whether the order was sought to be served and payment was offered on 25.11.1188 or not would not hold position as only defeat in the action inasmuch as the condition and requirement prescribed by section 25G read with Rule 81 of the Gujarat Industrials Disputes Rules 1961 obliges the employer to prepare and display/notify the seniority list of the workmen and follow seniority i.e. the principle of LIFO (Last-In-First-Out). Having considered the provision under section 25F(a) and (c) and Rule 80-B and Rule 81 the learned labour Court has held that the retrenchment effected by the petitioner board is in violation of Section 25-F and 25-G read with Rule 81 because the petitioner board had not displayed and notified seniority list 7 days before the date on which the retrenchment was effected. 19.2 In present case it is undisputed position that such list was not prepared and was not displayed/notified by the Board 7 days before 25.11.1988. Even the Board's witness accepted and admitted that when the respondents were relieved, seniority list was not prepared and was not displayed. Thereby the said condition was not complied. Thus, violation of Rule 81 is an undisputed position. The said defect would vitiate the disputed retrenchment of the concerned workman. 19.3 On this count learned counsel for the Board, so as to overcome said defect, would contend that while it is a fact that such list was not prepared and notified/displayed seven days before the date of retrenchment as contemplated by Rule 81, it would not vitiate the action because all persons/employees were retrenched and therefore there was no need for seniority list and that, therefore, its action should not be invalidated. In this context it is relevant to note that the said contention is not sustainable for more than one reasons. (a) Firstly, there is no evidence on record to establish that except 6 respondents/concerned workmen, no other person - employee was employed and working at the relevant time at Jetpur Scheme. In absence of any specific and cogent evidence, it cannot be presumed by the Court that there was no employee other than 6 concerned respondents employed at the relevant time by/at Jepur Sub Division. It is noticed, and mentioned above, that the attendance register/pay register for the relevant period reflected names of 40 employees and that, therefore, in absence of cogent evidence about total number of persons employed at relevant time and about different categories and number of employees in each category it cannot be presumed that there was no other employee employed in the Jetpur Sub Division and merely on the presumption the failure to notify the seniority list cannot be overlooked. More so, when the witness of the petitioner has stated in his deposition that the petitioner's establishment at Jetpur is permanent establishment and it exists and operates even now. (b) Secondly, merely because all employees employed in the establishment were to be retrenched, the condition prescribed by the statute cannot be unilaterally and at employer's discretion and decision ignored, overlooked and discounted by the petitioner and that too without establishing total number of employees on the rolls and that all employees who were on rolls were retrenched and such intimation under section 25 (F) (c) was given to appropriate government. (c) Third the witness of the petitioner board accepted and admitted in his cross examination that: (i) there is no material to support Board's claim that the respondents were engaged exclusively and only for Jetpur Scheme; and that (ii) when the workmen were relieved the survey work related to Chhaparwada Water Supply Scheme was in progress; and that at the time when the respondents were relieved scheme was not formally transferred and handed over to Jetpur Nagarpalika but the Nagarpalika had started and operating it; and that there is no material/document to establish exact date on which Jetpur Water Supply Scheme was formally and completely handed over to Nagarpalika. 19.4 More important fact, which the Board's witness accepted and admitted, are (a) Jetpur Sub Division Office/establishment is under Rajkot Division; (b) he also accepted that Jetpur, Virpur and Amarpur are under Jetpur Sub Division; and that (c) at the time when the respondents were relieved/retrenched the work related to water supply scheme at Virpur and Amarnagar were in progress; and that (d) he also accepted that there is material to support the claim that the dam project and Pardhari Group Water Supply Project were not under the Jetpur office; and that (e) under the Rajkot division, there are sub-divisions and more than 100 persons were deployed/posted at different sub-divisions employed under the Rajkot division at the relevant time; and that (f) at the time when the respondents were retrenched seniority list was not prepared and was not notified/displayed; (g) that the office/establishment at Jetpur is permanent office/establishment. (d) Fourth, according to the case of the respondents total number of employees in the Rajkot division should be taken into account for determining compliance of the condition under sections 25-F and 25-Gof the Act. (d) Fourth, according to the case of the respondents total number of employees in the Rajkot division should be taken into account for determining compliance of the condition under sections 25-F and 25-Gof the Act. Even if it is assumed that the total number of the employees only at Jetpur should be taken into account then also there is no document available on record to establish that at Jetpur establishment only these 8 or 11 respondents were employed and there was no other person employed at Jetpur establishment at the relevant time. 20. In light of above mentioned facts and evidence and having regard to the fact that for want of any evidence it is not established that the concerned workmen were exclusively engaged only for Jetpur Project Work and also having regard to the fact that Jetpur establishment is permanent establishment and it still exists and operates and executes similar schemes/projects and has employees working at Jetpur establishment, the learned labour Court reached to the conclusion that the Board failed to establish that the concerned persons were engaged only and exclusively for project work of Jetpur Water Supply Scheme. The Board's claim that all employees at Jetpur office/establishment were retrenched is not acceptable and sustainable. Therefore, the claim that there was no need to notify seniority list cannot be sustained and the learned Labour Court's findings cannot be faulted. 21. Further if the concerned persons were, as claimed by the Board, engaged only for the execution of the project work in Jetpur Water Supply Project then in that event their services would not be required after completion/after execution of the project and their service would not be required for the purpose of operating water scheme. Meaning thereby their services were not required, and there was no justification (had the Board's claim been correct) to continue the respondents after November 1986 inasmuch as even according to the petitioner board the work related to execution of project was completed in 1986. Thus, the fact that the concerned persons were continued even after 1986 and even after Civil Court vacated the interim order in March 1988 belies the board's contention that the concerned persons were engaged only for executing the project work. 22. Thus, the fact that the concerned persons were continued even after 1986 and even after Civil Court vacated the interim order in March 1988 belies the board's contention that the concerned persons were engaged only for executing the project work. 22. On overall consideration of the evidence, oral as well as documentary, which is available on record, it has emerged that: "(a) Undisputedly the respondents were engaged by the petitioner Board, however, any appointment letters were not issued by the petitioner Board; (b) The respondents were posted at and they worked at Jetpur Scheme; (c) However, there is no evidence on record to establish that and the petitioner Board's witness also accepted/admitted that there is no evidence with the petitioner Board to establish that the respondents were engaged only and exclusively for the Jetpur scheme and their appointment was on such condition and with clear intimation to the respondents; (d) The Jetpur scheme started in October 1977. Whereas, according to the Board, the scheme was transferred to the Board in January 1983 and the concerned workmen were engaged thereafter. However it is established that one person was engaged in 1978. This fact punctures the claim that all claimants were engaged by the Board only for project work; (e) On the ground that the scheme was completed somewhere in 1986, the Board had addressed a letter dated 7.11.1986 to the Nagarpalika to take over the scheme however until November 1993 the scheme was not formally transferred and handed over to the Nagarpalika; (f) The petitioner Board retrenched the concerned persons w.e.f. 25.11.1988. Thus, the concerned persons were retrenched and relieved about 2 years after the execution of the project was completed and about 5 years before the scheme was formally transferred to Jetpur Nagarpalika meaning thereby the workmen were not retrenched when the project work was completed; (g) The retrenchment orders dated 25.11.1988 were forwarded to the respondent workmen by Registered Post on 29.11.1988, i.e. 4 days after the date when the concerned workmen were retrenched; (h) The Jetpur Scheme/Jetpur Sub Division is part of and under Rajkot Division and at the relevant time, the petitioner Board employed more than 100 persons in the Rajkot Division; (i) the condition which obliges the employer to prepare and display seniority list (Rule 81) 7 days before the date when retrenchment is effected, was not complied when the concerned workmen were received." 23. The petitioner board has tried to take shelter under the interim order passed by the learned Civil Court in Civil Suit No. 249 of 1986 however it is pertinent to note that the said interim order (which was initially passed on or around 12.11.1986) was vacated in March 1988 whereas the concerned persons were continued and employed by the petitioner board even after March 1988 i.e. until November 1988 and that therefore the said explanation or defence of the petitioner Board, is neither justified nor sustainable. 24. The fact that the petitioner board takes shelter under the interim order passed by Civil Court to defend its action of continuing the respondents after 1986 when the execution of the project work was completed goes to show that the concerned persons were not engaged only for executing the project of preparing and completing Jetpur Water Supply Scheme. Under the circumstances the petitioner's claim that the concerned workmen were engaged exclusively and only for executing project work of Jetpur Water Supply Scheme cannot be sustained. 25. Once the above mentioned conclusions are reached and/or once the conclusions recorded by the learned labour Court are found factually and legally correct and sustainable then the final conclusion that the retrenchment of the respondents was effected without justification and without complying the condition prescribed under Section 25-F and Rule 81 read with section 25-G cannot be faulted. 26. Further, when it is found from the evidence of the petitioner's witness that Jetpur establishment is part of the Jetpur sub division which, in turn, is part of Rajkot division and that under Rajkot division various other projects of water supply scheme were being executed or were in progress, then the said fact would bring out there was no justification in relieving the concerned respondents inasmuch as they could have been continued at other project/scheme which were being executed either under Jetpur sub division or at other sub division under Rajkot division. 27. Learned labour Court has recorded certain other findings of fact on strength of which the petitioner's action is found to be unjustified and in violation of statutory provisions. 27. Learned labour Court has recorded certain other findings of fact on strength of which the petitioner's action is found to be unjustified and in violation of statutory provisions. Learned labour Court has observed in the impugned award with reference to issue No. 5, that the calculation of the total amount payable to the concerned respondents towards retrenchment compensation was incorrect and unjust inasmuch as the amount quantified by the petitioner board as payable towards retrenchment compensation and allegedly forwarded by R.P.A.D. was less than the amount which would be payable on compliance of the condition under Section 25F. Learned Court found that in case of Bhimjibhai and Vikramkumar the amount which would be payable towards retrenchment compensation was Rs. 3,150/- whereas the petitioner corporation had prepared the draft for sum of Rs. 2,819/-. Similar mistake is noticed by the learned Court with regard to the amount quantified in case of Jagdishbhai. Learned Court noticed that the amount payable to the Jagdishbhai would be Rs. 2,610.50 whereas the amount of the draft drawn in favour of Jagdishbhai was only Rs. 2,437.24. Thus, the amount/drafts allegedly forwarded by R.P.A.D. to the workmen were not in accordance with the formula prescribed under section 25-F. Having recorded such findings of fact, learned Labour Court observed that the said defect viz. shortfall in the amount of compensation also rendered the retrenchment defective and in violation of Section 25-F. 28. Any evidence to prove that the said conclusion is incorrect exact amount which was payable towards compensation to each respondent was offered on 25.11.1988 and/or was forwarded by demand draft dated 29.11.1988. The petitioner Board has not placed on record evidence related to the salary of the concerned workmen at the time when their services were retrenched i.e. on 25.11.1988. On this ground learned labour Court found petitioner's action of retrenching the concerned workmen illegal and in violation of statutory provisions. Such error would vitiate the retrenchment. The details with regard to the exact date of joining and the exact amount of salary payable to the concerned workmen and the calculation justifying the quantum determined by the petitioner corporation is not placed on record and the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court is not controverted and asserted by any cogent evidence and there is nothing before this Court to hold that the said findings are incorrect or unjustified. The aspects discussed above bring out that the conclusion by the learned Labour Court that the retrenchment of the concerned workmen is defective, cannot be faulted. 29. In this background Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate for the petitioner Board, submitted that if this Court accepts and upholds the findings of the learned Labour Court that the retrenchment of the concerned workmen was effected in violation of statutory provision and therefore, it is illegal, then, instead of confirming the order directing the Board to reinstate the concerned workmen, final relief may be modified and may be substituted by the direction to pay appropriate compensation. 30. So as to support the said submission, Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate for the petitioner Board, relied on the decision in case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Bhurumal [ (2014) 7 SCC 177 , Para 29 to 37], and the decision in case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation & Anr. v. Gitam Singh [ (2013) 5 SCC 136 ], as well as the decision in case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Man Singh [ (2012) 1 SCC 558 ] and the decision in case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal v. Santosh Kumar Seal & Ors. [ (2010) 6 SCC 773 ] and the decision in case of Municipal Council, Sujanpur v. Surinder Kumar [ (2006) 5 SCC 173 ] and the decision by High Court in case of Manager Gujcomason Pesticides Deptt. v. Kiritkumar Babulal Patel & Anr. [ 2011 (1) GLH 550 ]. 30.1 In the decision in case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Bhurumal (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court and observed that, ordinary principle (viz. granting reinstatement with full backwages when the termination is found to be illegal) is not to be applied mechanically in all cases. In the said case, Hon'ble Apex Court awarded compensation in sum of Rs. 3 lakhs. In the decision in case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation & Anr. v. Gitam Singh (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court instead of labour Court's direction to reinstate the daily wager with 25% backwages, allowed compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. In the said case, Hon'ble Apex Court awarded compensation in sum of Rs. 3 lakhs. In the decision in case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation & Anr. v. Gitam Singh (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court instead of labour Court's direction to reinstate the daily wager with 25% backwages, allowed compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. In case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal v. Santosh Kumar Seal & Ors., Hon'ble Apex Court considered the case of a workman whose service was terminated before 25 years without complying condition under Section 25F and Hon'ble Apex Court observed that though the retrenchment may be set aside, the direction to reinstate the workman may not be passed automatically. Likewise, in case of Municipal Council, Sujanpur v. Surinder Kumar (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court observed that appropriate relief, in the facts of the case, would be to grant compensation. 30.2 In this context, it would be appropriate also to take into account the decision by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ajaypal Singh v. Haryana Warehousing Corporation [ (2015) 6 SCC 321 ] where the service of an employee who was working on daily wage basis was terminated. In the said decision, Hon'ble Apex Court observed that:-- "25. It is always open to the employer to issue an order of "retrenchment" on the ground that the initial appointment of the workman was not in conformity with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India or in accordance with rules. Even for retrenchment on such ground, unfair labour practice cannot be resorted and thereby workman cannot be retrenched on such ground without notice, pay and other benefits in terms of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, if continued for more than 240 days in a calendar year. 27. In the present case, the services of appellant was not terminated on the ground that his initial appointment was made in violation of Articles 14 and 16of the Constitution of India. No such reasons was shown in the order of retrenchment nor was such plea raised while reference was made by appropriate Government for adjudication of the dispute between the employee and the employer. No such reasons was shown in the order of retrenchment nor was such plea raised while reference was made by appropriate Government for adjudication of the dispute between the employee and the employer. In absence of such ground, we are of the opinion that it was not open for the High Court to deny the benefit for which the appellant was entitled on the ground that his initial appointment was made in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India." A profitable reference may also be made to another decision by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Gauri Shanker v. State of Rajasthan [2015 (12) SCC 754]. In the said decision, Hon'ble Apex Court considered the case of a workman who was working on daily wage basis and his service was terminated in violation of Section 25F, Section 25G and Section 25Hand by way of unfair labour practice. In the said decision, Hon'ble Apex Court restored the decision by learned Labour Court directing the employer to reinstate the workman with 25% backwages after setting aside the judgment by High Court (where the decision of learned Labour Court was quashed) with the observation that the learned Single Judge of the High Court exceeded jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Hon'ble Apex Court also observed that retrenchment of service of an employee, which is effected in violation of Section 25F or Section 25G or Section 25H of the Act, renders the termination ab-initio void and that the award directing the employer to reinstate the workman who was illegally retrenchment, should not have been modified. 31. In present case, it is necessary to note that the witness of the petitioner Board has accepted and admitted certain crucial factual aspects namely, "[a] The Board's establishment at Jetpur is permanent establishment and even after the project/scheme of the Nagarpalika was completed, Board's Jetpur Sub-Division establishment continued. [b] Petitioner Board's Jetpur Sub-Division establishment is a sub-division of Rajkot division and more than 100 employees were employed by the Board under its Rajkot division (i.e. at different sub-divisions of Rajkot division) at the time when the concerned workmen were retrenched. [c] That Jetpur, Virpur and Amarnagar are under the Jetpur sub-division and that there is no material to establish that concerned dam and Pardhari group water supply scheme were not part of or under the control of Jetpur sub-division. [c] That Jetpur, Virpur and Amarnagar are under the Jetpur sub-division and that there is no material to establish that concerned dam and Pardhari group water supply scheme were not part of or under the control of Jetpur sub-division. [d] The board's witness also accepted and admitted that when the concerned employees were retrenched the schemes at Virpur and Amarnagar were in progress." 31.1 Thus, what emerges is the fact that the learned Labour Court's conclusions are based on evidence obtaining on record and the conclusions are also supported by cogent and satisfactory reasons. Thus, the findings and conclusions by the learned Labour Court, including the conclusion that the retrenchment of concerned workmen are in violation of section 25-F and section 25-G of the Act cannot be termed perverse and cannot be faulted. Consequently, the direction to reinstate the concerned workmen cannot be faulted more so when it is established that the retrenchment was effected in violation of Section 25F and 25G. 32. It is in light of the said facts that the justification with regard to the direction issued by the learned Labour Court requiring the board to reinstate the workmen without payment of any backwages and the question about appropriate relief has to be examined. 32.1 While opposing the direction to reinstate the concerned workmen, learned advocate for the petitioner Board claimed that the project work at Jetpur is concluded and that therefore, the direction to reinstate the workmen is unjustified. It is submitted that, in the event, the Court holds that the termination of the service of the concerned workmen was defective and was not made in accordance with law and there was violation of any statutory provision, then, the direction to reinstate the workmen may be appropriately modified and compensation in lieu of reinstatement may be awarded. Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate for the petitioner Board referred to the decision in case of Vice-Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh v. Akhilesh Kumar Khare & Anr. [ (2016) 1 SCC 521 ]. 32.2 On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent would contend that the learned Labour Court has already denied backwages and the direction is restricted to reinstatement and continuity of service which may not be disturbed in view of the fact that the termination was effected in violation of statutory provision. [ (2016) 1 SCC 521 ]. 32.2 On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent would contend that the learned Labour Court has already denied backwages and the direction is restricted to reinstatement and continuity of service which may not be disturbed in view of the fact that the termination was effected in violation of statutory provision. 32.3 In light of the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent have also clarified that the age prescribed for superannuation by the petitioner Board is 60 years, this Court has noticed that the concerned workmen have reached or crossed 50 years of age. From the details provided by learned advocate for the respondent, it has emerged that the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 19306 of 2006 has reached 53 years of age, the workman in Special Civil Application No. 19311 of 2006 has reached 56 years of age, the workman in Special Civil Application No. 19315 of 2006 has reached 55 years of age, the workman in Special Civil Application No. 23219 of 2006 has reached 56 years of age, the workman in Special Civil Application No. 23221 of 2006 has reached 51 years of age, the workmen in Special Civil Application No. 23218 of 2006 has reached 57 years of age, the workmen in Special Civil Application No. 2128 of 2010 has reached 54 years of age and the workmen in Special Civil Application No. 12601 of 2012 has reached 51 years of age. 32.4 Thus, if the direction issued by learned Labour Court is confirmed as it is, then, the concerned workmen would have opportunity to work for another 5 to 7 years and about 1 or 2 workmen may have opportunity to work for about 8 - 9 years. 32.5 On inquiry, learned advocate for the petitioner Board and the learned advocate for the respondent workmen have also informed the Court that as of now, applicable rate for daily wage is about Rs. 200/- per day and before about 2 years, the said rate was Rs. 150/- and prior to that the said rate was Rs. 135 per day. 32.5 On inquiry, learned advocate for the petitioner Board and the learned advocate for the respondent workmen have also informed the Court that as of now, applicable rate for daily wage is about Rs. 200/- per day and before about 2 years, the said rate was Rs. 150/- and prior to that the said rate was Rs. 135 per day. 32.6 It is also relevant to note that it is placed before the Court at the time of hearing that now the petitioner Board undertakes and executes the project/scheme and executes the project by outsourcing route and the system of engaging labourers/workmen at the site for executing the project is discontinued. 32.7 On the other hand the learned advocates for the workmen have emphasized that the office/establishment of the Jetpur sub-division is continued and the said office/establishment is not closed and from the said sub-division office, the work relating to the projects/scheme at different place is being undertaken. However, the aforesaid clarification by the petitioner Board that execution of the project is now being done by outsourcing is not disputed. It is also relevant that the workmen have not challenged the learned Labour Court's order declining the backwages but they have accepted the said decision. 33. So far as the order granting continuity of service is concerned, it is necessary to take into account that Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, the daily wagers do not have any right to hold the post. In the facts of the case, right to hold any post will not vest in the concerned workmen who worked as daily wagers. Under the circumstances, the order granting continuity of service cannot be said just and cannot be sustained, more so when the respondents had not worked with the petitioner Board for very long duration but they were engaged on daily wage basis (and that too without following the procedure prescribed for selection and recruitment) for short span of about 4 to 5 years. Considering the facts of the case, the direction granting continuity of service is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside and the said direction is hereby set aside. 34. This leaves behind the direction which requires the petitioner Board to reinstate the respondents. On this count it is relevant to note that Mr. Considering the facts of the case, the direction granting continuity of service is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside and the said direction is hereby set aside. 34. This leaves behind the direction which requires the petitioner Board to reinstate the respondents. On this count it is relevant to note that Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate submitted that no post and/or no vacancy available with the petitioner Board where the workmen can be accommodated. He also submitted that even if the Board is obliged to actually reinstate the workmen, then also, the corporation will have to undertake the process of retrenchment afresh for want of post as well as for want of vacancy. He submitted that in view of the fact that the learned Labour Court itself has denied backwages and the workmen have not taken out any proceedings challenging the order denying backwages, the corporation will have to reinstate the workmen only for sake of completing the formalities and then follow the procedure for retrenching the workmen. He submitted that instead of requiring the corporation to undergo such process which would consume time as well as amount of the corporation and any fruitful or effective purpose of actually reinstating the workmen would not be achieved and that therefore, the relief may be modified and the direction to reinstate the workmen may be modified and substituted with the direction to pay compensation at such rate which is considered appropriate by the Court. 35. Of course, learned advocate for the respondent workmen reiterated his request that the direction to reinstate the workmen may not be disturbed. However, in light of the foregoing discussions and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly the aspects discussed above, the Court is of the view that the interest of justice would be served if the direction passed by the learned Labour Court requiring the petitioner board to reinstate the respondent workmen is set aside/modified and instead substituted by the direction to pay lump sum compensation. 36. 36. On overall consideration of facts and circumstances and relevant factors including present age of concerned persons the wages paid to the workmen at the time of retrenchment and present/prevailing rate of minimum wages and the rates of revision in interregnum and the fact that even by order of the learned Labour Court the concerned workmen are not entitled for backwages, this Court is of the view that the petitioner board should pay sum of Rs. 2,15,000/- to each workman by way of lump sum compensation. For the foregoing reasons and in light of relevant facts and as result of above discussion, following order is passed. 36.1 The impugned award passed by the learned Labour Court is set aside and is hereby modified. The direction to reinstate the workmen with continuity of service is set aside. On overall consideration, the Court finds that if the sum of Rs. 2,15,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifteen Thousand only) is paid by way of lump sum compensation, then it would serve the interest of justice. The amount so quantified shall be paid by the petitioner board within eight weeks from the receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitions are partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.