JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. This petition was listed in the cause list for final hearing yesterday i.e. on 11th April, 2016. However, learned advocate for the respondent was not present and therefore, hearing of this petition was adjourned to today. Today also, learned advocate for the respondent is not present. In this view of the matter, the Court has proceeded to decide the matter on merits after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner-Panchayat and after considering the material available on record. 2. In this petition, petitioner-Panchayat has brought under challenge the award dated 13th August, 2010 passed by learned Labour Court, Jamnagar in Reference (LCJ) No. 170 of 2000, whereby, the learned Labour Court has partly allowed the reference and directed the petitioner-Panchayat to reinstate the respondent-workman on his original post as part time employee with continuity of service, however, without back wages. The petitioner-Panchayat is aggrieved by the award and the said direction. Hence, this petition. 3. So far as factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record and submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent raised an industrial dispute on the allegation that his service was discontinued illegally and he was relieved with effect from 30th October, 1999, after he had worked for almost 6 years with the petitioner-Panchayat. The dispute raised by the respondent-workman was referred for adjudication to the learned Labour Court at Jamnagar vide order dated 28.4.2000. The said dispute culminated into Reference (LCJ) No. 170 of 2000. 4. During the proceedings before the Labour Court, learned advocate for the respondent filed his statement of claim with the allegations that he worked with the petitioner-Panchayat for about 8 years and at the relevant time, his salary was Rs. 540/-. The respondent also claimed that he had worked continuously for about 8 years and he had worked for more than 240 days in every year. The workman also alleged that his service was terminated without any fault on his part and without complying and following the principles of natural justice and without following any procedure prescribed by law. He alleged that before terminating his service notice was not served or salary in lieu of notice was not paid and retrenchment of compensation was also not paid. On such allegation, he claimed for relief of reinstatement and consequential benefits. 5. He alleged that before terminating his service notice was not served or salary in lieu of notice was not paid and retrenchment of compensation was also not paid. On such allegation, he claimed for relief of reinstatement and consequential benefits. 5. The petitioner-Panchayat opposed the reference by filing written statement at Exh. 10. In the written statement, petitioner-Panchayat claimed that respondent was working as part time employee. The petitioner claimed that the service of the respondent was required only for 3 hours per day and he was engaged on part time basis. The petitioner-Panchayat also claimed that the respondent was employed in 1993 and his service was discontinued from 30th October, 1999 because there was no work to offer to the respondent and his service was not required by the Panchayat. It was claimed that since the respondent was working on part time basis, his request for reinstatement and consequential benefits may be rejected. The petitioner-Panchayat denied the claim of the respondent workman that he had worked for 240 days in every year. The petitioner-Panchayat admitted and accepted in the written statement that it does not maintain seniority list for temporary employees. Any other facts were not mentioned in the written statement. 6. After the stage of pleadings was completed, the parties to the proceedings placed on record oral and documentary evidences. The deposition of respondent-workman was recorded. On behalf of the petitioner-Panchayat, deposition of one Mr. R.B. Dangar was recorded. After stage of evidence was concluded, the learned advocates on behalf of claimant and employer completed their submissions and after considering the evidence on record as well as submissions, the learned Labour Court held that the service of the respondent was terminated in violation of Section 25-F and Section 25-G and the petitioner-Panchayat had also committed breach of Section 25-H of Industrial Disputes Act by subsequently engaging another person for similar work. Having reached to such conclusion, learned Labour Court directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent. However, in view of the fact that during his deposition the workman admitted that for maintaining his family he engaged himself by undertaking miscellaneous and casual labour work wherever available and was earning income so that his family could be maintained, the learned Labour Court denied the relief of back wages. 7. However, in view of the fact that during his deposition the workman admitted that for maintaining his family he engaged himself by undertaking miscellaneous and casual labour work wherever available and was earning income so that his family could be maintained, the learned Labour Court denied the relief of back wages. 7. The learned advocate for the petitioner-Panchayat submitted that since the respondent was engaged on part time basis, the Panchayat was not obliged to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 25-F. She also submitted that the learned Labour Court committed an error in directing reinstatement to the respondent-workman and learned Labour Court also committed an error in directing that the respondent should be reinstated with continuity of service. She further submitted that in view of the fact that the respondent himself accepted that he was doing miscellaneous labour work the directions to reinstate the workman should not have been granted because the respondent was gainfully employed in miscellaneous labour work. The learned counsel for the petitioner-Panchayat could not dispute the fact that at the time when the service of the respondent was terminated, seniority list as prescribed under Section 25-G read with Rule 81 was not notified/displayed and any notice to the appropriate Government as contemplated under Section 25F(C) was not given and the retrenchment compensation was not paid to the respondent. She also could not dispute the fact that at the time when the service of the respondent was terminated, the notice contemplated under Section 25F(a) was not given or salary and in lieu of such notice, was not paid. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Any submission on behalf of respondent is not made since no one is present for the respondent. So far as case of respondent is concerned, this Court has taken into account the respondent's deposition, the discussion in the award and other material on record. 9. From the material on record, it has emerged that as regards certain factual aspects there is no dispute. 9.1 It is not in dispute that the witness of the petitioner-Panchayat accepted and admitted in his deposition that the respondent had worked with the petitioner-Panchayat for about 8 years. 9.2 It is also not in dispute that the service of the respondent was discontinued by the petitioner with effect from 30th October, 1999. 9.1 It is not in dispute that the witness of the petitioner-Panchayat accepted and admitted in his deposition that the respondent had worked with the petitioner-Panchayat for about 8 years. 9.2 It is also not in dispute that the service of the respondent was discontinued by the petitioner with effect from 30th October, 1999. 9.3 It is also not in dispute that at the time when the respondent was relieved and his service was discontinued, the petitioner-Panchayat had not issued any notice and had not granted any opportunity of hearing and had not paid the retrenchment compensation and the seniority list was not notified/displayed. 9.4 It is also not in dispute that the respondent-workman was working with the petitioner-Panchayat on part time basis. 9.5 It is also not in dispute that the petitioner-Panchayat admitted and accepted before the learned Labour Court that after the respondent was relieved and his service was discontinued, another person was called for the same work and was employed by the petitioner-Panchayat. 9.6 It is also not in dispute that considering the application/request of the respondent-workman for direction to the Panchayat to place on record the attendance register and pay register for the relevant period, the learned Labour Court had passed the order directing the petitioner-Panchayat to place on record salary register and attendance register for the period between 1992 to 1999, however, despite said directions by the learned Labour Court and despite the workman's specific claim and assertion that he had worked continuously for about 8 years with the petitioner-Panchayat and that he had worked for 240 days in every year, the petitioner-Panchayat did not place material on record. 10. From the above mentioned undisputed factual aspects, it has emerged that respondent-workman worked with the petitioner-Panchayat for eight years and at the time when the respondent was relieved from service, his service was discontinued and petitioner-Panchayat had not followed any procedure whatsoever. 10.1 It has emerged from the record that neither notice as contemplated under Section 25F(a) or Section 25-F(c) was issued nor salary in lieu was paid. The retrenchment compensation was also not paid. Undisputedly, the respondent was not terminated for misconduct. Even otherwise, domestic inquiry was not conducted and opportunity of hearing was not granted. 10.1 It has emerged from the record that neither notice as contemplated under Section 25F(a) or Section 25-F(c) was issued nor salary in lieu was paid. The retrenchment compensation was also not paid. Undisputedly, the respondent was not terminated for misconduct. Even otherwise, domestic inquiry was not conducted and opportunity of hearing was not granted. 10.2 In this view of the matter, termination of the service of the respondent amounted to retrenchment, however, since for procedure prescribed under Section 25-F was not followed and the retrenchment compensation was undisputedly not paid, the said retrenchment of present respondent from service was illegal and in violation of the statutory provision. 10.3 The learned Labour Court has recorded specific conclusion and finding to that effect that the respondent's service was terminated in violation of Section 25-F and in view of undisputed facts and clear evidence such finding of fact recorded by the learned Labour Court cannot be faulted. 11. As mentioned earlier, from the cross examination of the Panchayat's witness, it has emerged that the petitioner-Panchayat had, after discontinuing the respondent, engaged another person for similar work. At that time, the respondent was not recalled and instead the Panchayat employed another person for similar work. The said action of the petitioner-Panchayat amounts to breach of Section 25-H. The learned counsel for the petitioner-Panchayat tried to claim that the person who was engaged subsequently for the same work, was regular appointee and therefore, his engagement/appointment cannot be termed in violation of Section 25-H. 12. The said submission by learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived and contrary to the evidence on record. 13. It was not the case even of the petitioner in the written statement filed before the Labour Court that the service of the respondent was discontinued because of and pursuant to the appointment of person selected in regular selection process. If the regularly selected/appointed person was engaged by the Panchayat then the said fact would have been clearly mentioned in the written statement and the Panchayat would have come out with specific case that respondent was relieved after appointment of regular appointee and would have mentioned the fact in the written statement. However, the said case was not set up by the petitioner-Panchayat in written statement. 14. However, the said case was not set up by the petitioner-Panchayat in written statement. 14. Further, the said case was not even set up and made out in his deposition by the witness of the petitioner-Panchayat who deposed before the Labour Court. 15. Even during the evidence of the petitioner's witness, it was not claimed and deposed that regularly selected person was appointed and that therefore, part time employee was relieved. 16. Moreover, any specific case to prove the factual aspects i.e. the date when was the said other person (who was subsequently appointed) was actually selected and actually appointed and/or when the respondent was engaged, he was engaged on leave vacancy. The Board also did not mention and did not prove the date on which the other person who was appointed and the date on which he resumed the duty. The said basic facts have neither been raised nor proved. 17. In this view of the matter, the said oral and bald submission which is made by learned counsel for the petitioner, without any basis either in written statement or in the oral evidence of petitioner's witness, and in absence of any relevant document, cannot be entertained. The said submission has no support of cogent evidence. 18. The clear admission of the fact by the petitioner's witness that subsequently another person was engaged for similar work, establishes violation of Section 25-H. 19. The admission by the petitioner-Panchayat in its written statement and also during the deposition of its witness that seniority list of temporary employees was not maintained at all and when the respondent was relieved the seniority list was not notified, breach of Section 25-G and Rule 81 is also established. 20. In this view of the matter, the findings and conclusion of the learned Labour Court holding that the petitioner committed breach of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H, cannot be faulted. 21. The said conclusion are based on evidence on record as well as admission by petitioner's witness. 22. When the learned Labour Court directed the petitioner-Panchayat to reinstate the respondent after having recorded such conclusion and findings of fact, the said direction cannot be faulted. 23. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner-Panchayat had received a communication dated 17th April, 2003, it was not permissible for the petitioner-Panchayat to reinstate the respondent and learned Labour Court should not have passed such direction. 23. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner-Panchayat had received a communication dated 17th April, 2003, it was not permissible for the petitioner-Panchayat to reinstate the respondent and learned Labour Court should not have passed such direction. Such a contention cannot be accepted. 24. When the respondent's termination is found to be in violation of statutory provision, the direction to reinstate the workman cannot be faulted or interfered with unless special circumstances are established. 25. Likewise, the submission that the learned Labour Court should not have passed the order directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent when the respondent himself admitted that he was doing some miscellaneous labour work cannot be accepted. It is pertinent that only because the person who is illegally terminated from service undertakes miscellaneous labour work to maintain himself and his family, the relief of reinstatement cannot be denied when the termination of his service is found to be arbitrary, illegal and in violation of statutory provision. The said submission deserves to be rejected and is hereby rejected. 26. At this stage, it is relevant to mention that the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent has been reinstated during the pendency of this petition i.e. with effect from 8th June, 2011. 27. Thus, since 5 years the respondent is already working with the petitioner-Panchayat and, as fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, during said period of 5 years, any complaint with regard to the performance of his duties are not received by the Competent Authority. These are additional reasons in light of which the order directing the petitioner-Panchayat to reinstate the respondent, even otherwise, does not warrant interference. 28. So far as the order directing the Panchayat to grant continuity of service is concerned, it is relevant to take into account the fact that respondent's initial appointment was irregular. 29. Besides, the proceedings before the learned Labour Court continued almost 10 years and the respondent was not in service during the said period of 10 years. Further, he was engaged on daily wage basis. Under the circumstances, the direction granting continuity of service with regard to an employee whose initial appointment is irregular cannot be sustained. 30. The order directing the petitioner to grant continuity of service to the respondent deserves to be set aside and is hereby set aside. 31. Further, he was engaged on daily wage basis. Under the circumstances, the direction granting continuity of service with regard to an employee whose initial appointment is irregular cannot be sustained. 30. The order directing the petitioner to grant continuity of service to the respondent deserves to be set aside and is hereby set aside. 31. The learned Labour Court's order directing the petitioner-Panchayat to reinstate the respondent on his original post as part time employee cannot be faulted and the said direction cannot be interfered with and therefore, the said direction is hereby confirmed. 32. In view of the fact that the respondent is already reinstated with work of petitioner any other direction and order is not required to be passed. 33. With the aforesaid clarification and the direction, the petition is partly modified and is disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.