JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Ms. Bhaya, learned advocate for the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner' or 'the board') and Mr. Rao, learned advocate for the workmen (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimants'). 2. This group of 5 similar petitions is listed together in Today's Cause List. This group of 5 petitions is filed against 5 separate but almost identical awards passed by the Industrial Court in 5 reference cases filed by the union on behalf of 5 claimants. The awards impugned in this group of 5 petitions are separate but similar and the learned Tribunal has relied on common evidence. The petitioner in all 5 petitions is common and is aggrieved by identical directions passed by the learned Tribunal. Learned advocates for the petitioner and the claimants have made common submissions in respect of all 5 petitions which are heard together. In this view of the matter, the group of petitions is decided by this common judgment. 3. Special Civil Application No. 75 of 2011 is filed against award dated 9.3.2010 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Surat in Reference (IT) No. 50 of 1996. Special Civil Application No. 76 of 2011 is filed against award dated 9.3.2010 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Surat in Reference (IT) No. 55 of 1996. Special Civil Application No. 77 of 2011 is filed against award dated 11.3.2010 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Surat in Reference (IT) No. 56 of 1996. Special Civil Application No. 78 of 2011 is filed against award dated 9.3.2010 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Surat in Reference (IT) No. 54 of 1996. Special Civil Application No. 79 of 2011 is filed against award dated 11.3.2010 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Surat in Reference (IT) No. 57 of 1996. 4. By the impugned awards, the learned Industrial Tribunal has directed the board to reinstate the concerned 5 claimants on their original post with continuity of service, however, without backwages. 5. So far as the factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the submissions by learned advocate for the petitioner and the claims and from the impugned award that on behalf of five claimants, a union named Bijlee Mazdoor Panchayat raised a dispute claiming, inter alia, that the service of the said claimants were illegally terminated by the board and that therefore, the claimants should be reinstated with consequential benefits. The appropriate government referred the said industrial dispute for adjudication to the learned Tribunal, Surat. The orders of reference came to be registered as Reference Nos. 50 of 1996, 54 of 1996, 55 of 1996, 56 of 1996 and 57 of 1996. During the proceedings of the said references cases before the learned Tribunal, the union filed statement of claim in the said reference cases wherein it claimed and alleged that the concerned claimants were engaged and employed by the board as workmen on Nominal Muster Roll (NMR) basis and they were paid salary on daily wage basis. It was also alleged that since the claimants were not paid salary as per the rules and pay scale of the board or minimum wages and since the claimants were being exploited, they joined the union. It was also claimed that when union started agitation on behalf of the workmen on NMR basis, daily wages basis and temporary basis. It was further alleged that thereafter, the board illegally and arbitrarily and without any fault on the part of the claimants terminated their services. 5.1 The claimant in reference No. 50 of 1996 claimed that his service was illegally and arbitrarily terminated on and from 16.10.1982. The claimant in reference No. 54 of 1996 claimed that his service was illegally and arbitrarily terminated w.e.f. 29.2.1984. The claimant in reference No. 56 of 1996 claimed that his service was illegally and arbitrarily terminated w.e.f. 10.3.1984. The claimant in reference No. 57 of 1996 claimed that his service was illegally and arbitrarily terminated w.e.f. 16.10.1982. The claimant in reference No. 55 of 1996 claimed that his service was illegally and arbitrarily terminated w.e.f. 14.3.1984. It was also alleged that at the time when the service of the said claimants were terminated, a reference/dispute wherein demand for regularization of the service of the employee on NMR basis was raised, was pending before the learned Tribunal and despite pendency of the said proceedings/dispute, the service of the claimants were terminated without seeking approval or permission under Section 33 of the Act. It was also alleged that the service of the claimants were terminated in violation of statutory provisions. 5.2 The reference cases were opposed by the petitioner board who filed written statements in the said five reference cases. Almost identical defence with reference to all five claims was raised by the petitioner board. It was also alleged that the service of the claimants were terminated in violation of statutory provisions. 5.2 The reference cases were opposed by the petitioner board who filed written statements in the said five reference cases. Almost identical defence with reference to all five claims was raised by the petitioner board. It was claimed that the claimants cannot be considered workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. It was also claimed that the dispute was raised after delay of almost 12 years and that therefore, the reference cases in respect of the dispute raised after such long period should not be entertained. The board also claimed that the claimants were not its employees and were never employed by the board and that the employer and employee relationship did not exist between the board and the claimants. The board also claimed that the claimants were never engaged by the board at any point of time. The board claimed that for such reasons, the reference was not maintainable and should be dismissed. After filing the written statements with such contentions, the petitioner board also submitted a separate application (Exh. 8) and raised the objection against the maintainability of reference cases on the ground of delay, as preliminary objection. 5.3 After the stage of pleadings and documentary evidence was over, the learned Tribunal proceeded to record oral evidence. From the record, it has emerged that in each of the said five reference cases, deposition of the claimants were recorded, whereas on behalf of the board, deposition of one Mr. Gamit was recorded in the proceedings related to reference case No. 50 of 1996 and the said deposition was placed on record of and relied upon by the petitioner in other four reference cases. Differently put, for all five reference cases, the petitioner board examined one witness who gave common evidence for all five reference cases. Gamit was recorded in the proceedings related to reference case No. 50 of 1996 and the said deposition was placed on record of and relied upon by the petitioner in other four reference cases. Differently put, for all five reference cases, the petitioner board examined one witness who gave common evidence for all five reference cases. 5.4 After the stage of evidence was concluded, learned Tribunal heard submissions by learned counsel for the board and the union on behalf of the claimants and thereafter, upon considering the material on record and the rival contentions, the learned Tribunal reached to the conclusion that the claimants were employed by the petitioner board and that the service of the claimants were discontinued by the petitioner board and that the action of the petitioner board was illegal and in violation of principles of statutory provisions and that therefore, the claimants deserve to be reinstated. The learned Tribunal also took into consideration the contention/fact that the dispute was raised after almost 12 years and after considering the said aspect, the learned Tribunal declined to grant backwages. The learned Tribunal accordingly passed separate but similar awards with above quoted directions. The petitioner board felt aggrieved by the said directions and filed present petitions. 5.5 From the record, it has also emerged that this Court vide order dated 21.7.2011 declined to grant interim relief and vacated the ad-interim relief which was granted earlier. The said common order dated 21.7.2011 passed in group of 5 petitions reads thus:- "Heard learned advocates Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya for the petitioner and Mr. Bharat T. Rao for the respondent. No case is made out for confirmation of ad interim relief. Hence interim relief is refused. Ad interim relief granted earlier is vacated." 5.6 It appears that against the said common order dated 21.7.2011, the petitioner board preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 1295 of 2011 to Letters Patent Appeal No. 1297 of 2011. The Hon'ble Division Bench considered the submissions by the board against the said common order dated 21.7.2011 and rejected the appeals against the order refusing interim relief. The order dated 14.9.2011 passed by Hon'ble Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 1295 of 2011 to Letters Patent Appeal No. 1299 of 2011 reads thus:- "By way of filing these appeals, the appellant has challenged the common order dated 21st July 2011 passed in Special Civil Application Nos. The order dated 14.9.2011 passed by Hon'ble Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 1295 of 2011 to Letters Patent Appeal No. 1299 of 2011 reads thus:- "By way of filing these appeals, the appellant has challenged the common order dated 21st July 2011 passed in Special Civil Application Nos. 75 of 2011 to 79 of 2011 vide which the learned Single Judge has refused to grant interim relief to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge committed an error as he has passed the impugned order without assigning any reasons. She has further submitted that this Court passed the following order on 4th March 2011: "Heard learned Advocate Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya for petitioner and learned Advocate Mr. B.T. Rao for respondent. I have considered submissions made by both learned advocates. Industrial Tribunal Surat has allowed Reference granting relief of reinstatement without back wages for interim period but with continuity of service. After considering submissions made by both learned advocates, question involved in this petition would require detailed examination. Hence, Rule. Notice as to interim relief returnable on 22nd March, 2011. Learned Advocate Mr. BT Rao appearing for respondent waives service of notice on behalf of respondent." 3. Subsequently, on 8th July 2011 interim relief was extended. The said order reads as under: "Heard learned advocate Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya for the petitioner. The learned advocate for the petitioner has invited attention of the Court to order dated 4th March 2011, whereby the Court was pleased to issue rule and notice as to interim relief returnable on 22nd March 2011. Today, the matter is heard for interim relief. Learned advocate Ms. Bhaya for the petitioner submitted that as reference is made after 14 years, order under section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act may not be passed. 2. Learned advocate Mr. Bharat T. Rao for the respondent submitted that earlier this Court had passed order dated 20th June 2001, in Special Civil Applications No. 4263 of 2011 to 4271 of 2001, the relevant part of which reads as under: "By way of interim relief, pending these petitions, there shall be stay against payment of back wages. However, the respondent shall be reinstated in service with effect from 14.4.2000. However, the respondent shall be reinstated in service with effect from 14.4.2000. The petitioner Board shall, within six weeks from today, reinstate the workman in service and pay wages for the period commencing from 14.4.2000 till the date of reinstatement. It is clarified that the wages to be paid shall be the minimum of the pay scale admissible to the concerned cadre. This arrangement shall continue pending the petition and shall be subject to the result of the petitions." 3. The learned advocate for the respondent-Mazdoor Panchayat requested that a similar order be passed. The learned advocate for the petitioner wants time to go through the order ultimately passed in those petitions. At her request the matter is adjourned to 21st July 2011." 4. From the record it is clear that right from 4th March 2011 there is no stay against the order dated 9th March 2010 of the Industrial Tribunal, Surat in Reference by which the concerned appellant was directed to reinstate the workman on his original post with continuity of service but without back wages. 5. No interim relief was granted by the learned Single Judge right from the beginning and the learned counsel for the appellant could not show any interim order passed on 4th March 2011. The Industrial Tribunal only granted reinstatement with continuity of service and without back wages. Despite the same, the appellant being an ideal employee is trying to drag the workman to this Court. The Reference is of 1996 and till date the workmen are not able to get the benefits of the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal. Though this is a fit case in which this Court deems it proper to impose the costs upon the appellant, this Court is desisting itself from imposing costs upon the appellant. The appeals are devoid of any merits. Hence, the same are dismissed summarily with no order as to costs. 6. In view of the dismissal of main appeals, no orders are required to be passed on the civil applications and the same stand disposed of accordingly." 6. During hearing of these petitions, it is given out by learned counsel for the claimants that in view of and after the said order dated 14.9.2011, the claimants have been reinstated. Factually the said aspect also comes out from the averments in the reply affidavit filed by the Dy. During hearing of these petitions, it is given out by learned counsel for the claimants that in view of and after the said order dated 14.9.2011, the claimants have been reinstated. Factually the said aspect also comes out from the averments in the reply affidavit filed by the Dy. General Manager of the board in Civil Application No. 2917 of 2014. In the said reply affidavit dated 10.7.2014 filed by the board in Civil Application No. 2917 of 2014 it is averred and stated, inter alia, that:- "3. I submit that looking to the order of the Industrial Tribunal, the Tribunal has granted reinstatement of the workman on his original post. The workman was working as N.M.R. And accordingly he has been reinstated on the said post with continuity of service. Therefore the order of the Industrial Tribunal dated 9.3.2010 has been complied with by the Opponent in its true spirit. It is submitted that at present the workman is being paid minimum wages of Rs. 224.50 per day. Therefore Opponent has already complied with the directions of the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore the fact of rejection of L.P.A. Against grant of interim relief and not granting interim relief by the Learned Single Judge has no bearing." 6.1 Thus, even according to the petitioner board, the claimants have been reinstated on original post i.e. as NMR employees and they are working with the petitioner board as NMR employees and the board has also declared that the claimants have been reinstated on the said post with continuity of service. According to the details mentioned in the affidavit made in July 2014, the claimants were paid minimum wage at Rs. 224.50 per day. 6.2 In this background, the grievance raised in this petitions against the impugned awards has to be considered. 7. Ms. Bhaya, learned counsel for the board, contended that the learned Tribunal has committed error in drawing inference with regard to the number of working days for which the claimants worked before the alleged termination. She submitted that the board had placed on record the documents whereby it was established that the claimants had not worked for 240 days in proceeding 12 months and the learned Tribunal, despite such evidence available on record, drew adverse inference against the board and recorded findings that the claimants had worked for 240 days. She submitted that the board had placed on record the documents whereby it was established that the claimants had not worked for 240 days in proceeding 12 months and the learned Tribunal, despite such evidence available on record, drew adverse inference against the board and recorded findings that the claimants had worked for 240 days. According to the board, the said findings and observations by the learned Tribunal is contrary to evidence on record and therefore, unsustainable. It is also claimed that in view of the fact that the said findings is erroneous, the directions based on the said findings also should not be sustained. Learned counsel for the board also submitted that the learned Tribunal committed error in accepting the case of the claimants that their service were terminated during pendency of the reference/dispute where the demand for regularization was raised on behalf of the employees engaged and working on NMR basis. She claimed that the reference was not pending at the relevant time and the learned Tribunal committed error in accepting or assuming that the reference/dispute with regard to NMR employees was pending at the relevant time. Learned counsel for the board submitted that the learned Tribunal also committed error in not accepting the board's objection against the reference on the ground that the dispute was raised after delay of 14 years. She submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have rejected the reference as not maintainable on the ground of delay of 12 months in raising the dispute. She submitted that the findings by the learned Tribunal are erroneous, unjustified and unsustainable and the awards deserve to be set aside. Learned advocate for the petitioner relied on the decisions in case of Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills vs. State of Rajasthan 2004 8 SCC 161 , M.P. Electricity Board vs. Hariram 2004 8 SCC 246 , Surendranagar District Panchayat vs. Dahyabhai Amarsinh ( AIR 2006 SC 110 ). 8. The petitions and submissions by learned counsel for the petitioner board are vehemently opposed by Mr. Rao, learned counsel for the union - claimants. 8. The petitions and submissions by learned counsel for the petitioner board are vehemently opposed by Mr. Rao, learned counsel for the union - claimants. He submitted that in view of the fact that while the claimants were in service any document which would establish their employment with the board were not supplied or provided to the claimants and the gate passes which were given for enabling entry of the claimants at the place of work were also taken back when their services were terminated and the workmen did not have documents available with them to establish that they were employed by the petitioner board and that therefore, on behalf of the claimants in reference cases, applications seeking direction against the petitioner board to place on record the NMR register for past 5 years prior to the date on which the services came to be terminated was filed. He claimed that the said application was opposed by the board who declined to submit such documents on record. 8.1 He submitted that in view of such stand of the petitioner board, the claimants made efforts to get copy of the documents placed on record by the board in the case where Mr. Salim Kazi was the concerned workman i.e. complaint No. 36 of 1997. The said document (i.e. the statement containing names of persons working on NMR basis) was placed on record of the reference cases and in light of the details mentioned in the said statement, it was established before the learned Tribunal that the names of the five claimants were mentioned by the board in its statement and that therefore, the contention that the claimants were never employed by it is incorrect. He submitted that the learned Tribunal has passed the award on the basis of evidence available on record and that therefore, there is no error so far as the findings of fact and conclusions recorded by the learned Tribunal are concerned. Mr. Rao, learned advocate referred to the deposition by the concerned claimants as well as the deposition by the witness of the petitioner board i.e. Mr. Gamit and submitted that the learned Tribunal has recorded the findings and conclusions in the award mostly on the basis of the admissions by Mr. Mr. Rao, learned advocate referred to the deposition by the concerned claimants as well as the deposition by the witness of the petitioner board i.e. Mr. Gamit and submitted that the learned Tribunal has recorded the findings and conclusions in the award mostly on the basis of the admissions by Mr. Gamit during his deposition and that therefore, now, it is not open to the petitioner board to claim that learned Tribunal has committed any error, more particularly because the witness of the board accepted/admitted during his deposition that the claimants were working on NMR basis with the petitioner board and that the petitioner board had not issued identity card as required by the provisions under the Factories Act. 8.2 Mr. Rao, learned counsel, also submitted that the case of the petitioner that the claimants had not worked for 240 days and/or the board's case that it had established before the learned Tribunal that the claimants had worked for less than 240 days or that the claimant had worked for duration of 57 to 82 days i.e. less than 100 days is incorrect and unjustified inasmuch as the relevant record for the entire period during which the claimants worked with the board was not placed before the learned Tribunal and that therefore, the inference drawn by the learned Tribunal is not unjustified. Learned counsel for the claimants also claimed that the learned Tribunal has recorded correct and justified reasons for not dismissing the reference and/or declining the relief on the ground that the dispute was raised belatedly. 8.3 Mr. Rao, learned counsel for the claimants, also claimed that before terminating the service of the claimants or before relieving them, the petitioner board had not issued any notice and/or had not paid salary in lieu of notice and had also not paid retrenchment compensation. He also submitted that the petitioner board had not committed domestic inquiry and the service of the claimants were terminated in violation of the principles of natural justice. 8.4 According to learned counsel for the claimants, the concerned persons were terminated illegally and arbitrarily and that therefore, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in accepting the case of the claimants while rejecting the defence of the board or in passing the directions which are impugned in the petitions. 9. 8.4 According to learned counsel for the claimants, the concerned persons were terminated illegally and arbitrarily and that therefore, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in accepting the case of the claimants while rejecting the defence of the board or in passing the directions which are impugned in the petitions. 9. I have considered the submissions by learned advocates for the petitioner and the respondent and the impugned award as well as order dated 21.7.2011 and the order passed by Letters Patent Appeal No. 1295 of 2011 to 1299 of 2011. 9.1 One of the grounds on which the awards are assailed is that learned Tribunal committed error in not rejecting the reference cases on ground of delay in view of the fact that the claimants raised dispute after 12 years. 9.2 From the facts it has emerged that according to the case of the claimants their service came to be terminated and they were relieved on and from 16.10.1982, 29.2.1984, 10.3.1984 and 14.3.1984 whereas appropriate government passed order of reference in May 1996. In light of the said facts the petitioner board opposed the reference cases on the ground that the reference cases were barred by limitation and not maintainable in view of the delay of about 12 years in raising dispute. 9.3 In view of the fact that the Industrial Disputes Act does not prescribe any period of limitation, the proceedings cannot be said to be barred by limitation. What is not provided for by law cannot be read into by the learned Labour Court in the Act or in any of the provisions of the Act. In absence of any provision prescribing period of limitation the learned Labour Court's decision to adjudicate reference cases on merits instead of dismissing it on ground of delay cannot be faulted. 9.4 However, so far as objection on ground delay is concerned, it is a matter of record that two claimants claimed that they were relieved in 1982 and 3 claimants claimed that they were relieved in 1984. It is also matter of fact that appropriate government passed order of reference in 1996. Thus, the dispute was raised after 12 years. 9.5 Having regard to the said facts learned tribunal has while entertaining the reference cases and while adjudicating the dispute declined back wages for entire period. It is also matter of fact that appropriate government passed order of reference in 1996. Thus, the dispute was raised after 12 years. 9.5 Having regard to the said facts learned tribunal has while entertaining the reference cases and while adjudicating the dispute declined back wages for entire period. 9.6 It is necessary to note that even after holding that the action of reliving claimants was in breach of statutory provision and an arbitrary action, learned tribunal refused backwages not only for the period upto order or reference but even for the period order of reference any backwages have not been granted. 9.7 Having regard to the fact that dispute was raised in 1996 i.e. after delay of about 12 years the learned tribunal could have considered the claim of the workmen for appropriate relief as regards consequential benefits including back wages, for period after May 1996 when the order of reference was passed. 9.8 However, learned tribunal denied back wages for entire period and that therefore any benefit for the intervening period is not granted to the claimants. 9.9 It is pertinent that though the Court found termination of the claimants in violation of statutory provision as well as in violation of principles of natural justice the backwages are denied for entire period i.e. even for the period after the date of order of reference. Thus, any financial burden is not imposed on the board for the period during which the claimants did not raise the dispute. 9.10 Learned tribunal has thereby balanced the equity. 9.11 In this view of the matter, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the decision of learned Labour Court to entertain the reference and to reject the objection on the ground of limitation and/or delay. 10. In present case there are certain undisputed facts which deserve to be taken into account, they are: (a) Board witness has accepted in his deposition that the claimants were employed by the Board and that they were engaged on N.M.R. Basis; (b) Meaning thereby the claim of the petitioner board that employer employee relationship is not existed between the claimant and the board is falsified by the deposition of its own witness. (c) The conclusion by learned Industrial Tribunal that employer employee relationship existed between the board and the claimants cannot be faulted. (c) The conclusion by learned Industrial Tribunal that employer employee relationship existed between the board and the claimants cannot be faulted. (d) According to the board claimants had voluntarily stopped reporting for duty. (e) The said statement/admission by the board's witness during his deposition justified the learned tribunal's conclusion that employer employee relationship existed between the board and the claimants. 11. On one hand petitioner board claimed that claimants were not employed by it and they had never worked with the board and that the employer employee relationship never existed between board and the claimants. 12. On the other hand the petitioner board also claimed that it had not terminated the service of the claimants but the claimants voluntarily stopped reporting for duty and claimants themselves and on their won volition abandoned their service. 12.1 Thus, the board raised self-contradicting stand and defence. 12.2 The board also claimed that the claimants had not worked for 240 days but that one of the claimants worked 57 days whereas other claimant had worked for 52 days etc. Thus, when the board mentioned number of days for which the claimants worked, board contradicted its own claim before learned tribunal that the claimants were never employed by it. 13. On behalf of the petitioner board it is very vehemently contended that the claimants had not worked for 240 days and learned labour Court has committed error in drawing adverse inference as to the number of working days for which the claimants worked with the board. 14. Before proceeding further it is relevant to note that the petitioner board claimed and asserted before learned tribunal and even board's witness Mr. Gamit also said in his evidence that it was the claimants who had voluntarily stopped reporting for duty and the board had not terminated their service. 14.1 Now on this count it is undisputed fact/position that the petitioner board had not taken any steps against claimants for not reporting for duty inasmuch as the board never addressed any letter/communication to the claimants asking them to report for duty and/or it did not issue any notice calling for their explanation as to why they were not reporting for duty and/or the board never informed them that if they do not report for duty their conduct will be treated as misconduct or that their conduct will be treated as abandonment of service. 14.2 Any communication or any intimation of any nature whatsoever was never issued by the board on the ground that the claimants had on their own volition stopped reporting for duty. 14.3 The board unilateral presumed that the claimants had abandoned their service and the Board proceeded on the premise of one sided presumption that the claimants had abandoned service and had voluntarily left service and on such presumption, petitioner board deleted their names from muster roll. 14.4 Such action could not have been taken by the petitioner board without giving even a single intimation to the claimants asking them to report for duty and/or calling for their explanation with regard to their conduct of not reporting for duty. In this regard, before deleting their names from the nominal muster roll on such presumption principles of natural justice ought to have been followed before assuming that the claimants had abandoned job. The said presumption and the said action of the board viz. of deleting their names from the nominal muster roll is unjustified and unsustainable on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 15. Under the circumstances, even if, for the sake of considering the merits and/or relevance of the objection, the board's contention and objection on the ground that the claimants had not worked for 240 days were assumed to be right and even if the board's objection or contention that the learned Tribunal committed error in drawing inference with regard to number of days for which claimants worked, were also assumed to be right then at the most the petitioner board can escape the conclusion with regard to violation of Section 25(f), however, it cannot escape the conclusion on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 15.1 When the statement/assertion by the board's witness in his deposition viz. that the claimants stopped for reporting duty and when the board had not addressed any letter or issued any intimation to the claimants when they allegedly stopped reporting for duty is taken into account it emerges that the board proceeded on deemed abandonment of service by claimants without conducting any inquiry or without issuing even formal intimation or any notice to the claimants. 15.2 Therefore also board's action and decision is not sustainable and the decision of the learned Labour Court holding that the board's action is illegal and unjustified and unsustainable, cannot be faulted. 16. 15.2 Therefore also board's action and decision is not sustainable and the decision of the learned Labour Court holding that the board's action is illegal and unjustified and unsustainable, cannot be faulted. 16. Learned tribunal has categorically and expressly observed in the awards that the board has taken self contradicting defence and has also made incorrect or misleading assertion or statement of facts. 16.1 In this context it is pertinent that on one hand the board claimed that the claimants are not its employees and have never been employed or engaged by it and they have never worked with the board whereas on the other hand the board claimed that claimants worked for less than 100 days and they had stopped reporting for duty on their own volition. 16.2 On this count it is vital to note that the claimants successfully established before the learned tribunal that they had worked with the petitioner board, from the statement which was placed on record by board itself in another reference/complaint case in the matter of one Mr. Salim Kazi (Complaint No. 36/1997). 16.3 The said statement reflected the names of the claimants as person working as N.M.R. basis. Therefore, learned tribunal's conclusion that the claimants were workmen of the board and that employer & employee relationship existed between board and the claimants cannot be faulted. 16.4 Likewise, from the statement of the petitioner's witness that the claimants had stopped reporting for duty and from his further statement/admission that letter/intimations are never issued to the persons engaged on NMR basis and since the claimants were engaged on N.M.R. basis, any letter/intimation or notice were not issued, establish the fact that the board proceeded on assumption and the board resorted to such presumption without issuing any intimation or without conducting inquiry and the said fact establishes that the claimants were terminated in violation of principles of natural justice. 16.5 It is pertinent that the board's witness expressly said in his deposition that the board is not ready to allow the claimants to resume their duties as employee on NMR basis. 16.6 In this view of the matter, the learned Tribunal's order directing the petitioner to reinstate the claimants cannot be faulted. 16.7 So far as the direction granting continuity of service is concerned, the said direction is, in the facts of the case, not sustainable. 17. 16.6 In this view of the matter, the learned Tribunal's order directing the petitioner to reinstate the claimants cannot be faulted. 16.7 So far as the direction granting continuity of service is concerned, the said direction is, in the facts of the case, not sustainable. 17. Undisputedly, the claimants were engaged on NMR basis and they were working on daily wage basis. Another relevant fact is that the claimants raised dispute after about 12 years. Further, the proceedings, which came to be initiated by virtue of order of reference passed in May 1996, are adjudicated and decided in 2010, i.e. after about 14 years. Thus, the claimants were not in service with the petitioner for more than about 22 years and that, therefore, the direction granting continuity of service in favour of the persons who have not been in service with the petitioner for such long period, cannot be sustained, more so when the claimants are responsible for delay of almost 12 years in raising the dispute. 18. The direction granting continuity of service is, therefore, not sustainable and deserves to be set aside and is accordingly hereby set aside. 19. In light of the observations by the learned Tribunal and the award in Reference No. 50 of 1996 that the claimants deserved to be reinstated as Helper, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the direction which obliges the board to reinstate the claimants as Helper, is unjustified and unsustainable. She submitted that the claimants were never employed in category of Helper and that they had never worked in the category of helper and according to the applicable Rules, there are prescribed qualifications for the post of Helper which the claimants do not possess. On such premise, the said direction is assailed. 20. In this context, it is relevant to mention that it was not even the case of the claimants that they worked in the category of Helper. Actually, on reading the operative part of the reference, it does not appear that the learned Tribunal has directed the board to reinstate the claimants in the category, or on the post, of Helper. To allay, it is alleged that the claimants are entitled for reinstatement on their original post on which they were engaged and they were working on NMR basis and not in the category or cadre of Helper. To allay, it is alleged that the claimants are entitled for reinstatement on their original post on which they were engaged and they were working on NMR basis and not in the category or cadre of Helper. 20.1 So far as the direction to reinstate the claimants is concerned, for the reasons discussed hereinabove this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said direction. 21. There is another reason also in light of which this Court is not inclined to interfere with said direction viz. that the claimants have been reinstated since 2012 and they are working with the Board for last about 4 years. 22. Besides this, the petitioner has failed to make out any ground to convince or pursue this Court to interfere with the order directing the petitioner to reinstate the claimants on their original post. 23. As given out by learned advocate for the claimants, and it is also borne out from the affidavit filed by the petitioner the claimants have been reinstated and that therefore there is no reason or justification to interfere with the said direction. 23.1 It is necessary to clarify that from the affidavit filed by the petitioner in Civil Application No. 2917 of 2014, it appears that the board has reinstated the claimants with continuity of service. If that is so, then the said arrangement will not be disturbed only on account of the observations by this Court in present judgment and if continuity in service is already granted then the said arrangement will continue without any change or alteration. 23.2 So far as the decisions in the cases of Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills vs. State of Rajasthan 2004 8 SCC 161 , M.P. Electricity Board vs. Hariram 2004 8 SCC 246 , Surendranagar District Panchayat vs. Dahyabhai Amarsinh ( AIR 2006 SC 110 ) are concerned, in the facts of present case, the said decisions do not assist the petitioner in assailing the direction by the learned Tribunal inasmuch as the learned Tribunal has not declared the termination of the claimants illegal and arbitrary on the ground of violation of section 25Fbut the learned Tribunal has also faulted the board's action on ground of violation of principles of natural justice and that, therefore, the said decisions do not assist the board in assailing the conclusion and direction by the learned Tribunal. In the decision in case of Rajasthan State Ganganagar (supra) Hon'ble Apex Court addressed the issue related to the obligation and burden of proof to establish completion of 240 days of continuous work in a year. As mentioned above in present case the petitioner's action is not faulted and set aside by learned Labour Court on the ground of violation of Section 25F of the Act but the petitioner's action of terminating the service of the respondent is also faulted and set aside, essentially and materially on ground of violation of principles of natural justice and that therefore said decision does not render any assistance to the petitioner in present cases. Likewise in cases of M.P. Electricity Board (supra) and Surendranagar District Panchayat (supra) Hon'ble Apex Court addressed issue about burden of proof as to the completion of 240 days of continuous work in a year and the issue of regularization in service and status of permanency. Hon'ble Apex Court also examined the case in light of the provision under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act. The facts of present case stand on different footing and the petitioner's action of terminating the service of the respondent is faulted in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore said decision also does not help the petitioner's case in present petitions. With the aforesaid clarifications and directions, the petitions are disposed of. Rule is discharged.