JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Ms. Megha Chitaliya, learned advocate for the petitioners-State and Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the respondent. 2. In this petition, the petitioner-State has challenged award dated 07.05.2007, passed by the learned Labour Court, Rajkot, in Reference (L.C.R.) No. 454/93, whereby the learned Labour Court directed the petitioner-State to reinstate the respondent with 25% of backwages and with continuity of service. 3. After hearing the petitioner, the Court admitted the petition and by way of interim relief stayed the implementation and operation of the impugned award and directions vide order dated 06.05.2008. 4. Before proceeding further, it is relevant and appropriate to mention that at the time when the petition was heard and came to be admitted vide order dated 06.05.2008, it was submitted and declared by the petitioner-State that according to record of office of the concerned Department (under which the petitioner was engaged on temporary and daily wage basis) the birth date of the petitioner is 06.09.1946. 4.1 Meaning thereby, the respondent had reached to the age of superannuation in September, 2004 and at that time, reference was pending before the learned Labour Court. 4.2 Therefore, the direction to reinstate the respondent could not have been passed. 4.3 Today, at the time of hearing, learned AGP also submitted that according to information given by learned advocate for the respondent, the respondent died on 18.01.2014. 5. So far as the facts involved and relevant for the purpose of present petition and for deciding the dispute raised in the petition is concerned, it has emerged from the record that the respondent raised an industrial dispute on the allegation that the Deputy Engineer, Dhoraji and Executive Engineer, Rajkot orally terminated his service on and from 17.03.1989. 5.1 On such allegation, the respondent had raised a dispute after delay of almost four years i.e. in 1993. 5.2 The said industrial dispute raised by present respondent referred for adjudication to learned Labour Rajkot vide order dated 06.08.1993 passed by appropriate Government. The reference came to be registered by the learned Labour Court as Reference (LCR) No. 454/93. 5.3 During the proceedings before the learned Labour Court, the respondent herein filed its statement of claim and alleged that he was working with the Deputy Engineer, Bhadar Irrigation Yojna, Section-II, since 25.11.1974 and at the relevant time his salary was Rs. The reference came to be registered by the learned Labour Court as Reference (LCR) No. 454/93. 5.3 During the proceedings before the learned Labour Court, the respondent herein filed its statement of claim and alleged that he was working with the Deputy Engineer, Bhadar Irrigation Yojna, Section-II, since 25.11.1974 and at the relevant time his salary was Rs. 20.65/- per day and that his service is illegally terminated without any fault on his part and without following any procedure prescribed by law and without payment of retrenchment of compensation and without applying principles of natural justice. 5.4 On such allegations, the respondent demanded reinstatement with consequential benefits. 5.5 The Opponent-State i.e. present petitioner opposed the reference by filing written-statement (Exh.12). 5.6 The petitioner claimed before the learned Labour Court that the respondent was engaged without following procedure prescribed for selection and recruitment and that he was engaged intermittently for casual work and on need basis. 5.7 It was also claimed that in 1989 i.e. in preceding 12 months the claimant had not worked for 240 days, and therefore, any question of complying requirement under Section 25F of the Act did not arise. 5.8 During his deposition, the workman claimed that his service was terminated with effect from 17.03.1989. He also claimed that he was working with the office of Executive Engineer, Rajkot, under Deputy Engineer, Dhoraji, Bhadar Irrigation Yojna, Section-II and without following any procedure, his service was arbitrarily and abruptly terminated. 5.9 The petitioner herein did not examine any witness, however, certain documents i.e. statement which contained details of number of days for which the respondent worked with the Department were placed before the learned Labour Court. 5.10 After the stage of evidence was completed, the learned Labour Court heard the submissions on behalf of the claimant-workman and the employer i.e. present petitioner and after considering the material on record, the learned Labour Court reached to the conclusion that the claimants service was terminated without following procedure prescribed in by law more particularly, in breach of Section 25-Fof the Act. 5.11 The learned Labour Court also recorded that it was established that the petitioner had engaged other employees after the service of the respondent was terminated and that therefore, the petitioner also committed breach of Section 25-G and Section H of the Act. 5.11 The learned Labour Court also recorded that it was established that the petitioner had engaged other employees after the service of the respondent was terminated and that therefore, the petitioner also committed breach of Section 25-G and Section H of the Act. 5.12 Having reached to such conclusion, the learned Labour Court directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with 25% backwages and continuity of service. 6. Ms. Megha Chitaliya, learned AGP assailed the impugned award and submitted that the learned Labour Court failed to appreciate that the respondent had raised industrial dispute after three years which established the fact that he was not a regular and permanent employee with the petitioner and that he was engaged on the intermittently on any basis and that he was otherwise engaged in gainful activities elsewhere and that therefore, the direction to reinstate workman and/or to pay 25% backwages should not have been passed. She also submitted that the respondent had not worked for 240 days during past 12 months and that therefore, there was no obligation on the petitioner to comply condition under Section 25-F of the Act and that therefore, the learned Labour Court has committed error in holding that the petitioner actions of discontinuing or relieved the respondent is in violation of statutory provision. 7. The learned advocate for the respondent vehemently supported and justified the award and the direction passed by the learned Labour Court. He submitted that the respondent had worked for more than 11 years with the petitioner and that he had worked for more than 240 days with the petitioner. He also submitted that service of the respondent was discontinued arbitrarily and abruptly without following any procedure prescribed by law, and that therefore, there is no error in the award and the petitioner must comply the direction to pay backwages. 8. I have heard learned advocates for the petitioners-State and respondent-workman and also examined the material on record and also considered the impugned award by the learned Labour Court. 9. It is not in dispute that the respondent-workman himself alleged and claimed that his service was orally terminated on and from 17.03.1989. 9.1 It is also not in dispute that the respondent raised industrial dispute in 1993 and order of reference came to be passed in August, 1993. 9. It is not in dispute that the respondent-workman himself alleged and claimed that his service was orally terminated on and from 17.03.1989. 9.1 It is also not in dispute that the respondent raised industrial dispute in 1993 and order of reference came to be passed in August, 1993. 9.2 It is thus, undisputed fact that respondent-workman raised dispute after almost four years against his allegedly termination in March, 1989. 9.3 It is also not in dispute that the respondent-workman was engaged for casual work. 9.4 It is also not in dispute that he was not engaged after following procedure for selection and recruitment. 9.5 The name of the respondent was not sponsored by employment exchange and he was engaged for temporary duration. 10. The learned Labour Court has recorded finding of fact, on the basis of the deposition of the respondent that the respondent-workman himself admitted during his deposition that he had not worked for 240 days in 1989. 11. It is noticed from the award that the learned Labour Court has observed and recorded that the opponent-employer i.e. present respondent had worked in 1975 and his service/performance was found satisfactory. 11.1 The learned Labour Court also recorded that the petitioner had issued identity card to the respondent which was placed on record at Exh.35. 11.2 The learned Labour Court has also recorded that after the respondent was relieved, the petitioner had effected fresh appointments and other persons were recruited for similar/same work. 11.3 Having taken into account of said evidence, the learned Labour Court also recorded finding of fact that the petitioner-State committed breach of Section 25-H of the Act. 11.4 The learned Labour Court also found that at the time when the respondent was discontinued or relieved from the service, the principle of last-in-firs-go i.e. principle of seniority was not followed by the petitioner. 11.5 Having recorded such finding of fact, the learned Labour Court has also recorded that in view of breach of statutory provision the respondent is entitled for reinstatement. 12. Beside this, having regard to the fact that the respondent had raised industrial dispute after passage of three years and also having regard to the fact that in the interregnum the respondent must have been engaged gainfully, the learned Laboaur Court awarded 25% backwages. 13. 12. Beside this, having regard to the fact that the respondent had raised industrial dispute after passage of three years and also having regard to the fact that in the interregnum the respondent must have been engaged gainfully, the learned Laboaur Court awarded 25% backwages. 13. During her submissions, learned AGP has not been able to show any evidence which establishes that any other persons were not engaged by the petitioner-State after the respondent was discontinued and relieved from the service. 14. Any evidence to establish that the respondents claim that he was working with the petitioner-State since 1974 is incorrect is also not brought to the notice of the Court from the record available on file of present petition. 15. Any evidence to establish that the finding of fact recorded by the learned Labour Court that the officer of the petitioner had issued certificate to the respondent about his employment and about his performance of work is incorrect and/or the finding of fact recorded by the learned Labour Court that the petitioner has issued identity card to the respondent is not correct, is not brought to the notice of the Court from the material on record of this petition. 16. On the basis of such evidence, the learned Labour Court held that factum of employer and employee relationship was established by the respondent. 17. The learned Labour Court also recorded finding of fact that the respondent had established that he had worked continuously from 1974. 18. During the hearing of present petition, the petitioner has failed to successfully assail the said finding of fact and any material to establish that the respondent had not worked continuously from 1974 to 1985 is not shown to this Court from the record available on file of present petition. 19. Any material to assail the finding of fact that though subsequently some persons were engaged, the respondent was not recalled for work and was not reinstated is also not brought to the notice of this Court during the hearing of this petition. Therefore, there is no basis for which to hold that the learned Labour Courts conclusion that the petitioner committed breach of Section 25-H is incorrect. 20. The learned Labour Court has also recorded finding of fact that when the respondent was discontinued, the principle of seniority i.e. last-in-first-go was not followed. 21. Therefore, there is no basis for which to hold that the learned Labour Courts conclusion that the petitioner committed breach of Section 25-H is incorrect. 20. The learned Labour Court has also recorded finding of fact that when the respondent was discontinued, the principle of seniority i.e. last-in-first-go was not followed. 21. Under the circumstances, there is no reason or justification to interfere with the said finding of fact, more particularly when any evidence to demonstrate that the respondent was junior most and/or any other junior person was continued in employment when the respondent was relieved is not shown from the record. 22. When the learned Labour Court has reached to the conclusion that the action of the petitioner of relieving the respondent from the service is in breach of Section 25-G and Section H of the Act, then in that event, even if the petitioners submission that the respondent had not worked for 240 days in 1989 is believed, the said fact would not be material and will not make difference so far as final conclusion by the learned Labour Court with regard to Section 25-G and Section H of the Act is concerned. 23. Under the circumstances, there is no justification to interfere with the order of reinstatement. 24. At this stage, it is necessary to recall that the workman reached the age of superannuation in 2004 and died in 2014. Now, therefore, the need or question of actual reinstatement does not survive. The respondent, in such circumstances, would be entitled for appropriate benefits until the date on which he reached to the age of superannuation, more particularly when any ground to interfere with the direction to reinstate the respondent is not established. 25. However, so far as direction to pay 25% backwages is concerned and the petitioners claim for retiral benefits is concerned, upon taking over-all view of the matter and above mentioned evidence, it appears that if the direction with regard to reinstatement and 25% backwages is modified and the petitioner is directed to pay lumpsum compensation under sum of Rs. 50,000/- is passed, it would serve interest of justice and balance the equity. 50,000/- is passed, it would serve interest of justice and balance the equity. In this view of the matter, following order is passed:- Since question of reinstatement does not survive in view of the fact that the respondent had reached to the age of superannuation during pendency of the reference and he died in 2014, the impugned order required to be modified. The said fact leaves behind the issue with regard to backwages and other benefits which the respondent would be entitled to on reinstatement. 26. Having regard to the said aspects, the petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- as lump sum compensation in lieu of all claims including retiral benefits and backwages. 27. The amount shall be paid to the heirs/legal representative of the respondent, after due verification about the proof identity and upon satisfaction of the authority that the claimants are heirs/legal representatives of the respondent, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within 6 weeks after the receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid direction, present petition is disposed. Rule is discharges, however, with aforesaid modification.