JUDGMENT K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Permission is granted to Mr. Panaya, learned advocate to enter his appearance in place of Mr. Oza, learned advocate for the respondent. 2. Heard Ms. Sejal K. Mandavia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner - Gujarat Maritime Board (hereafter be referred to as "the petitioner - board") and Mr. Pandya, learned advocate for the respondent - workman. 3. In this petition, the petitioner - board has challenged the award dated 02.10.2010 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference No. L.C.B. 414/1995, whereby the learned Labour Court, Bhavnagar has directed the petitioner - board to reinstate the respondent - workman on original post with continuity of service with 20% back wages. 4. The petitioner - board is aggrieved with the said direction, hence, present petition. While admitting the petition for final hearing, this Court [Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.K. Rathod] granted ad-interim relief against the award subject to compliance of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter be referred to as "the Act"). 5. So far as factual backdrop is concerned, it emerges from the record that the respondent - workman raised industrial dispute on the allegation that the petitioner - board terminated his services illegally and arbitrarily by order dated 08.06.1993. On such allegation, the respondent - workman claimed that he should be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. 6. On failure of conciliation proceedings, the government passed an order on 22.11.1995 referring the said dispute to the learned Labour Court at Bhavnagar. The reference came to be registered as Reference (L.C.B.) No. 414/1995. During the proceedings before the learned Labour Court, the respondent - workman filed statement of claim wherein he alleged that he was engaged as a cleaner with the petitioner - board and was working, as such, since last two years with the petitioner - board at salary of Rs. 35.05 per day and that his service was, arbitrarily and abruptly, terminated vide order dated 08.06.1995, without any fault on his part and without following principles of natural justice and without complying the procedure prescribed under the law and in violation of Section 25(F) and under Section 25(G) of the Act. The respondent-workman also claimed that when he was discontinued from service, the petitioner - board did not give any notice, notice salary, did not pay compensation or any other amount. 7. The respondent-workman also claimed that when he was discontinued from service, the petitioner - board did not give any notice, notice salary, did not pay compensation or any other amount. 7. The reference was opposed by the petitioner - board, who filed written statement before the learned Labour Court and claimed that the respondent was engaged on fixed term basis and for that purpose, separate appointment letters were issued from time to time and that his engagement by the petitioner - board was contractual and that his employment came to an end, automatically, on expiry of fixed term as mentioned in the appointment letters. It was claimed that since respondent was engaged vide different appointment letters for fixed term, the provision under Section 25(F) of the Act was not applicable and, therefore, there was no obligation to pay compensation or any other amount or to follow any procedure at the time when the service of the respondent came to an end on expiry of the fixed term mentioned in the appointment letters. 8. After termination of service of the respondent, the respondent issued demand notice asking the petitioner - board to reinstate him in service. However, his request was not accepted. Therefore, he raised industrial dispute, which came to be referred for adjudication. 9. During the proceedings before the learned Labour Court, the respondent - workman placed oral as well as documentary evidence on record of the reference before the learned Labour Court. Likewise, the petitioner - board also placed oral and documentary evidence on record of the reference before the learned Labour Court which included the copies of the various appointment letters issued to the respondent. After the stage of evidence was concluded, the learned Labour Court heard the submissions on behalf of the claimant and the petitioner - board also considered the material available on record and reached to the conclusion that the service of the respondent was terminated in violation of the provisions of the Act. The learned Labour Court did not accept the contention of the petitioner - board that since the respondent was engaged, for fixed term, vide different appointment letters, there was no obligation to comply with Section 25(F) of the Act. Having rejected the contentions of the petitioner - board, the learned Labour Court directed the petitioner - board to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service and with all consequential backwages. 10. Having rejected the contentions of the petitioner - board, the learned Labour Court directed the petitioner - board to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service and with all consequential backwages. 10. Ms. Sejal K. Mandavia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner reiterated the contention raised in the written statement and submitted that the respondent was engaged on fixed term basis and that, therefore, there was no obligation for the petitioner - board to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 25(F) of the Act. She also submitted that the learned Labour Court has committed an error in holding that the respondent was terminated from the service in violation of statutory provisions. She submitted that the respondent worked with the petitioner - board only for two years and that, therefore also, the direction to reinstate the workman with continuity of service and backwages is unjust and illegal. She also submitted that the service of the respondent came to an end automatically on expiry of the term mentioned in the last appointment letter, which was issued to him and, there was no termination of the service of the respondent by the petitioner - board. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner - board also submitted that even if the action in discontinuing the service of the respondent is held to be illegal then also, the order of termination to the respondent from discontinuing of service is also the relief may be modified by awarding appropriate lump sum compensation. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the directions issued by the learned Labour Court are not justified. Learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions in the case of State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Rameshwar Lal Gahlot, (1996) 1 SCC 595 ; in the case of Purshottambhai R. Kachhadia Vs. State of Gujarat and others, (2000) Volume 2, G.L.R. 1793; in the case of Deputy Executive Engineer, Kadi Taluka Panchayat and others Vs. Quareshi Ahmedbhai Piyabhai, 2010 Volume 2 G.L.R. 1292 and in the case of Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation Vs. Salimbhai Umarbhai Mansuri, (2013) 14 SCC 456 . 11. At this stage, Mr. Pandya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent - workman has appeared and opposed the submissions made by learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner - board. Quareshi Ahmedbhai Piyabhai, 2010 Volume 2 G.L.R. 1292 and in the case of Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation Vs. Salimbhai Umarbhai Mansuri, (2013) 14 SCC 456 . 11. At this stage, Mr. Pandya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent - workman has appeared and opposed the submissions made by learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner - board. He submitted that the respondent worked with petitioner - board for more than two years and then his service was abruptly terminated without following any procedure prescribed by the law. He submitted that the learned Labour Court has also reached to the conclusion that the termination of the service of the respondent is illegal and in violation of the statutory provisions. Accordingly to the learned advocate for the respondent, the conclusion of the learned Labour Court is based on evidence on record and the said conclusion may not be interfered with. 12. I have heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned advocate for the respondent. I have considered the material on record and also considered the impugned award and the conclusion of the learned Labour Court. 13. Before proceeding further it is relevant to note certain undisputed facts. 14. On one hand, the respondent - workman claimed that he worked as cleaner with the petitioner - board at salary of Rs. 35.05 per day and his service was terminated by the petitioner - board on 08.06.1993, the petitioner - board, on the other hand, came out with almost similar details but with contention that the respondent - workman was engaged on fixed term basis. 15. Even according to the petitioner - board, it is not disputed that the respondent was engaged as cleaner. It is also not disputed that the respondent worked with the petitioner - board as cleaner for about two years. It is also not disputed by the petitioner that the service of the respondent was discontinued w.e.f. 08.06.1993. 16. From the undisputed fact, it has also emerged that the respondent was engaged by the petitioner - board for almost more than 24 months and during his tenure, he performed his duty as cleaner. 17. The petitioner - board claimed before the learned Labour Court, in the written statement that the respondent was engaged on fixed term basis. 18. 16. From the undisputed fact, it has also emerged that the respondent was engaged by the petitioner - board for almost more than 24 months and during his tenure, he performed his duty as cleaner. 17. The petitioner - board claimed before the learned Labour Court, in the written statement that the respondent was engaged on fixed term basis. 18. However, it is pertinent to note that in the written statement, the petitioner - board did not mention the term/total period for which the respondent was engaged. 19. It is pertinent to note that any specific contract/agreement declaring the specific or special work for which the respondent was allegedly engaged for fixed term was not placed on record before the learned Labour Court. 20. On the other hand, the said claim of the respondent with regard to his nature of work is not denied by the petitioner - board and any evidence was not placed before the learned Labour Court to establish that the respondent - workman was not performing work and function as cleaner. 21. By any stretch of imagination, the work of cleaner in the maritime board cannot be said to be a work which would last for limited fixed term period and would be required to be performed only for limited period. Factually, having regard to the nature of function, work of cleaner would be, by any yardstick, a permanent work, so far as maritime board is concerned. 22. Under the circumstances, the contention that the respondent was engaged only on account of temporary need for specific work for specific period cannot be accepted, more particularly in absence of any evidence that after the respondent was relieved, the said work also came to an end and any other person was not engaged for performing the same duty, after respondent No. 3 was relieved from the service. The said contention or submission by the petitioner - board cannot be accepted in absence of evidence. 23. It is pertinent to note that from the details and documents placed on record by the petitioner - board, the Labour Court found that the petitioner - board had issued about 18 different appointment letters by virtue of which respondent was regularly and continuously employed by the petitioner - board for the same work. 24. 23. It is pertinent to note that from the details and documents placed on record by the petitioner - board, the Labour Court found that the petitioner - board had issued about 18 different appointment letters by virtue of which respondent was regularly and continuously employed by the petitioner - board for the same work. 24. In paragraph No. 5.1 of the award, the learned Labour Court has mentioned the days of the various appointment letters which were issued by the petitioner - board and were placed on record before the learned Labour Court. The details of the dates on which appointment letters were issued are mentioned below: "10-9-91, 20-09-91, 16-11-91, 18-12-91, 23-1-92, 12-3-92, 1-4-92, 28-4-92, 3-6-92, 23-8-92, 7-9-92, 9-10-92, 11-11-92, 6-1-93, 4-2-93, 8-3-93, 6-4-93 and 15-5-93" 25. From the details mentioned in appointment letters and from the details which emerge from the deposition of the witnesses of the petitioner - board, the learned Labour Court found that the petitioner - board had regularly i.e. every month issued appointment letters engaging the respondent on 29 days basis. Two statements containing details about the period/tenure mentioned in the respective appointment letters are summarised/reproduced in the award. The said details read thus: Sr. No. Period Days 1. 10-9-91 to 29-10-91 29 day 2. 4-11-91 to 9-12-91 29 day 3. 18-12-91 to 15-1-92 29 day 4. 17-1-92 to 15-2-92 29 day 5. 17-2-92 to 29 day 6. 20-3-92 to 14-4-92 29 day 7. 20-4-92 to 17-5-92 29 day 8. 19-5-92 to 16-6-92 29 day 9. 18-6-92 to 16-7-92 29 day 10. 7-9-92 to 5-10-92 29 day 11. 10-10-92 to 7-11-92 29 day 12. 9-11-92 to 7-12-92 29 day 13. 6-1-93 to 3-2-93 29 day 14. 5-2-93 to 5-3-93 29 day 15. 9-3-93 to 6-4-93 29 day 16. 8-4-93 to 6-5-93 29 day 17 10-5-93 to 7-6-93 29 day Total days 497 Sr. No. Period Days 1. 10-9-91 to 9-10-91 29 day 2. 14-10-91 to 11-11-91 29 day 3. 16-11-91 to 14-12-91 29 day 4. 18-12-91 to 15-1-92 29 day 5. 17-1-92 to 15-2-92 29 day 6. 17-2-92 to 16-3-92 29 day 7. 20-3-92 to 17-4-92 29 day 8. 20-4-92 to 17-5-92 29 day 9. 19-5-92 to 16-6-92 29 day 10. 18-6-92 to 16-7-92 29 day 11. 7-9-92 to 5-10-92 29 day 12 10-10-92 to 7-11-92 29 day 13. 9-11-92 to 7-12-92 29 day 14. 6-1-93 to 3-2-93 29 day 15. 17-1-92 to 15-2-92 29 day 6. 17-2-92 to 16-3-92 29 day 7. 20-3-92 to 17-4-92 29 day 8. 20-4-92 to 17-5-92 29 day 9. 19-5-92 to 16-6-92 29 day 10. 18-6-92 to 16-7-92 29 day 11. 7-9-92 to 5-10-92 29 day 12 10-10-92 to 7-11-92 29 day 13. 9-11-92 to 7-12-92 29 day 14. 6-1-93 to 3-2-93 29 day 15. 5-2-93 to 5-3-93 29 day 16. 9-3-93 to 7-4-93 29 day 17. 8-4-93 to 6-5-93 29 day 18. 10-5-93 to 7-6-93 29 Total days 558 26. The above quoted details bring out the fact that right from September 1991 to June 1993, the petitioner - board had regularly issued appointment letters to the respondent. The said statements also bring out the fact that in one statement the Board declared that the person was engaged for same work for 497 days from 10.09.1991 to 07.06.1993 whereas in second statement, the Board mentioned that the person was engaged for same work for 558 days during the same period, i.e. for more than 21 months. During the said period of about 21 months, the respondent continuously worked for about 558 days with the petitioner - board. 27. Obviously, the said arrangement was made by the petitioner - board with a view to depriving the respondent of his legal rights which would be available to him upon being engaged continuously without artificial break by separate appointment orders instead of being engage by a single appointment letter. Apparently, the arrangement was designed by the petitioner - board with a view to frustrating legal obligation which would be imposed on continuous engagement of an employee for a period of more than 12 months. Such arrangement or such practice, and that too by a board owned by the government, deserves to be deprecated. Such practice amounts unfair labour practice. It is obvious that the petitioner board wanted to take disadvantage of workmen's helplessness by claiming that respondent was engaged on fixed term basis. 28. As mentioned earlier, any separate contract was not entered into and executed between the petitioner - board and the respondent - workman for employing the respondent. The respondent was engaged by virtue of above mentioned different appointment letters which were regularly issued by the petitioner board from September 1991 to June 1993. 29. 28. As mentioned earlier, any separate contract was not entered into and executed between the petitioner - board and the respondent - workman for employing the respondent. The respondent was engaged by virtue of above mentioned different appointment letters which were regularly issued by the petitioner board from September 1991 to June 1993. 29. In this view of the matter, the petitioner's claim and contention that the appointment of the respondent would fall within the purview of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act and consequentially, the conditions prescribed under Section 25(F) of the Act would not be applicable, cannot be accepted. 30. The artificial breaks given by the petitioner to the respondent during the tenure when he was engaged, cannot be acknowledged or approved in eye of law and Court cannot put its seal of approval on such arrangement and method. In this view of the matter, the board's claim that respondent's employment with the petitioner was contractual and/or that his engagement was covered within Clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act and that, therefore, the conditions prescribed under Section 25(F) of the Act was not applicable, is not sustained and is hereby rejected. 31. Once the said conclusion is reached, it comes out that the respondent - workman had worked for 240 days during the period preceding 12 months and that, therefore, the petitioner - board was obliged to comply the conditions prescribed under Section 25(F) of the Act. 32. In present case, it is undisputed position that when the respondent was relieved and his service was discontinued in June 1993, the petitioner - board had not served notice to the appropriate government as contemplated under Section 25(F) of the Act and/or had not issued any notice to the workman as contemplated under Section 25(F)(a) of the Act, it had not paid salary in lieu of such notice and compensation as contemplated under and in accordance with Section 25(F) was also not paid. Thus, undisputedly, the requirement prescribed under Section 25(F) of the Act was not followed and complied with, when respondent was discontinued from the service and, therefore, the action of relieving the respondent and discontinuing from the service from June 1993 is in violation of Section 25(F) of the Act. 33. In view of the facts of the present case, the decisions on which the learned advocate for the petitioner has relied, are not applicable. 34. 33. In view of the facts of the present case, the decisions on which the learned advocate for the petitioner has relied, are not applicable. 34. In this context, it is appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Court in the case of Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation (supra) where the Hon'ble Court has observed that in case where termination of the service of the workman is found to be violative of the statutory provisions then, ordinarily, unless exceptional circumstances are made out and established, the direction to reinstate the workman should be granted. 35. In the present case, any special or exceptional circumstances is not made out. It is not the case of the petitioner - board that it's activity is completely closed. It is not the case of the petitioner that the work or the job in which respondent - workman was performing his duty, does not exist and the said work and job of a cleaner are abolished. Under the circumstances, in absence of any evidence which would even suggest any exceptional circumstances, the petitioner's claim/request to set aside the order directing reinstatement cannot be accepted. 36. As mentioned earlier by virtue of the impugned award the learned Labour Court has issued 3 directions viz. (a) that the petitioner should reinstate the respondent; (b) that the petitioner should grant continuity of service to the respondent; and (c) that the petitioner should pay 20% back wages. So far as the first direction is concerned i.e. direction to reinstate the respondent is concerned, this Court does not find any reason or justification to interfere with the said direction. So far as second direction is concerned it is relevant to recall that the respondent was engaged on daily wage basis and without following procedure prescribed for selection and recruitment. There was no material on record before the learned Labour Court and there is no material on record of present petition that any vacancy on sanctioned permanent post of Cleaner exists and also having regard to the fact that before the service of the respondent was discontinued, the respondent had worked for about 21 months and more than 22 years have passed since he was discontinued, the second direction requiring the petitioner board to grant continuity of service as well as third direction to pay 20% back wages cannot be sustained, therefore said directions are set aside. 37. 37. With the aforesaid clarifications the award is partly modified and accordingly the petition is disposed of.