Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 844 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Narsingbhai Ratnabhai Parmar

2016-04-18

K.M.THAKER

body2016
JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Barot, learned AGP, for the petitioner - State. 2. This group of petitions arise from common award dated 21.4.2011 passed by the learned Labour Court, Dahod in group of reference cases namely Reference (LCD) No. 233 of 2008 to 270 of 2008 (old Reference (LCG) No. 304 of 2000 to 341 of 2000) whereby the learned Labour Court has partly allowed the reference cases and for the reasons recorded in the award, more particularly in paragraph No. 11 of the award, the learned Labour Court has directed present petitioner to pay lump sum compensation at the rates specified in the award to each claimant workmen (which ranges from Rs. 26,000/- to Rs. 34,000/- depending on the length of service of each workmen which, in turn, ranges from 14 to 16 years). The petitioner State is aggrieved by the said directions. Hence, present petitions. 3. So far as factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the details mentioned in the petitions and the facts recorded in the award and from the submissions by learned advocates for the claimant workmen, that the claimants before the learned Labour Court, prior to their termination, were working as Labourers/Chokidars under the authority of Range Forest Officer, had raised industrial dispute upon feeling aggrieved by illegal termination of their service. The industrial dispute raised by the claimants came to be referred by the appropriate government to the learned Labour Court vide order of reference dated 29.3.2000 and the said reference came to be registered as Reference (LCG) No. 304 of 2000 to 341 of 2000 (new number Reference (LCD) No. 233 of 2008 to 270 of 2008). 3.1 During the proceedings before the learned Labour Court, the workmen filed statements of claim and alleged, inter alia, that they were working under the authority of Range Forest Officer since more than about 15 years, however, they were not paid full salary at the rate prescribed by law and they were also made to work overtime, however, any wages for overtime work was also not paid. They also alleged that other benefits like leave, weekly of, salary at the rates prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act, etc. They also alleged that other benefits like leave, weekly of, salary at the rates prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act, etc. were not granted to them, however, due to compelling need for employment, they continued to work with the office of the Range Forest Officer, however, their service came to be illegally and abruptly terminated by oral order dated 30.12.1996. The claimants claimed that the opponent terminated their service on 30.12.1996 without following any procedure prescribed by law, inasmuch as neither notice was issued nor salary in lieu of notice was paid and neither any opportunity of hearing was granted nor retrenchment compensation was paid. With such allegations, the concerned workmen prayed for reinstatement in service with consequential benefits. In their statement of claims, the claimants also described their job profile and mentioned the nature of duties and functions which they were required to perform. 3.2 The said reference cases were contested by the opponent, i.e. present petitioner, who filed their written statement. The opponent claimed that the claimants were engaged under and for implementation of the RDF scheme. It was also claimed that the scheme was discontinued from 1997. The petitioner claimed before the learned Labour Court that the claimants had to work according to their convenience and any time for their work/duty was not fixed. It was also claimed that the claimants were assigned contract and were engaged on contractual basis and that therefore, they were not treated as employees on the establishment. It was also claimed that the persons were engaged for fixed period and that therefore, their engagement to an end on completion of period and there was no question of terminating their service in view of the terms and conditions at which they were employed. The petitioner i.e. original opponent also claimed that after communication was received in August 1996, the scheme was thereafter discontinued and the claimants were relieved. The opponent, i.e. present petitioner, opposed the maintainability of the reference on the ground that the functions and its activities would not come within the purview of the definition of the term "industry" defined under Section 2(j) of the Act and that therefore, reference cases are not maintainable. The opponent, i.e. present petitioner, opposed the maintainability of the reference on the ground that the functions and its activities would not come within the purview of the definition of the term "industry" defined under Section 2(j) of the Act and that therefore, reference cases are not maintainable. 3.3 The learned Labour Court considered the pleadings and the submissions and framed five issues including the issue as to whether the activity of the opponent amounts to sovereign function and/or it falls out side the purview of the term "industry" and whether employer/employee relationship existed between the claimants and the opponent and that whether the service of the claimants were terminated illegally and arbitrarily and whether the claimants were entitled for reinstatement with backwages. 3.4 So far as other issues framed by the learned Labour Court are concerned, the learned Labour Court held that the claimants, except Mr. Pogalabhai Dhanabhai Parmar, other claimants established that employer and employee relationship existed between them and the opponent. The learned Labour Court also reached to the conclusion and recorded findings of fact that the termination of the service of the claimants, except in case of Mr. P.D. Parmar, were terminated in illegal and unjustified manner. The learned Labour Court also reached to the conclusion that the claimants are not entitled for reinstatement and backwages, but they should be paid lump sum compensation. Having reached such findings of fact and conclusions, the learned Labour Court passed the award dated 21.4.2011 with above quoted directions. 4. Mr. Barot, learned AGP, submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court are not just and legal, but the learned Labour Court has failed to appreciate the material on record and the conclusion recorded by the learned Labour Court are contrary to the material on record. Mr. Barot learned AGP also submitted that the learned Labour Court erred in not appreciating that the concerned persons were engaged on fixed term basis and that therefore, the termination of their service would not fall within the purview of Section 25F of the Act and consequently, the petitioner did not commit any illegality while discontinuing the service of the claimants. He submitted that the claimants were engaged for casual and temporary work under the RDF Scheme and that therefore, the claimants were not entitled for any relief, more particularly because they worked on contract basis. He submitted that the claimants were engaged for casual and temporary work under the RDF Scheme and that therefore, the claimants were not entitled for any relief, more particularly because they worked on contract basis. Learned AGP submitted that the learned Labour Court failed to appreciate the said facts and related evidence and recorded erroneous conclusions which are not supported by evidence and that therefore, the award is bad in law and may be set aside. Except the said submissions, any other submission is not made. 5. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the learned Labour Court has not committed any error in the award. According to learned counsel for the workmen, the learned Labour Court ought to have directed the petitioner to reinstate the claimants, however, since the learned Labour Court has, for the reasons recorded in the award, considered it appropriate to award lump sum compensation against which the petitioners have not raised challenge and that therefore, the scope of submission on behalf of the claimants is restricted. He submitted that under such circumstances and facts, the respondents/claimants restrict the submissions and submit that the award may not be interfered with. Learned counsel for the respondent workmen submitted that the dispute raised by the petitioner in present petitions is actually covered by the decision by learned Single Judge in other group of petitions where similar and identical awards in case of similarly situated persons were challenged by the petitioner State and the said petitions came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the claimants also submitted that the appeals against the decision by learned Single Judge are also dismissed. 6. Learned AGP, however, submitted that against the order passed by Hon'ble Division Bench dismissing the appeals, the State has filed Special Leave Petitions before Hon'ble Apex Court and the said Special Leave Petitions are pending before Hon'ble Apex Court. He, I however, also admitted and clarified that the judgment and its operation are not stayed and that as such it cannot be denied that the dispute in and the subject matter of these petitions are covered by the decision by learned Single Judge and may be decided and disposed of by appropriate order, however, it may be clarified that the decision would be governed by the final outcome of the case before Hon'ble Apex Court. 7. 7. From the record, it appears that the deposition of the claimants workmen in some of the reference cases were recorded and other claimants relied on the said depositions on the premise that the facts in respect of each claimants are almost similar inasmuch as they were performing similar nature of duties and their service came to be terminated by the same opponent on the same date and in similar manner. It was also claimed that except some difference in date of joining (which varied by few months), there was no difference as regards factual aspects. 8. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to deal with the learned Labour Court's decision as regards the objection against maintainability of the Reference. 8.1 In that context, the learned Labour Court, after examining the evidence on record and rival contentions reached to the conclusion that the functions and activities of the opponent cannot be considered as sovereign function and/or the functions and activities of the opponent do not fall outside the purview of the term "industry" and that therefore, the reference cannot be dismissed on the ground of maintainability. So as to reach to the said finding, learned Labour Court took into account the evidence and material placed before it and relied on the decision by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa & Ors. AIR 1978 SC 548 as well as the decision by Full Bench in case of Gujarat Forest Producers, Gatherers & Forest Workers Union v. State of Gujarat 2004 (2) GLR 1488 . When the material on record and the observations by Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision in case of Bangalore Water Supply (supra), more particularly the triple test laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court are taken into account and when the material on record is also examined in light of the decision by Full Bench in case of Gujarat Forest producers (supra), it emerges clearly that the learned Labour Court has not committed any error in holding that the functions and activities of the respondent do not take the opponent out side the purview of the term "industry" and the activity and functions of the respondent come within the purview of the term "industry" and that therefore, the reference cases could not have been dismissed on the ground that the same were not maintainable. The learned Labour Court has not committed any error in holding that the reference cases are maintainable and/or in adjudicating the reference cases on merits. The said decision and conclusion cannot be faulted. 8.2 It is relevant to mention that at the time of hearing of the petitions, learned AGP has fairly not opposed the award and the conclusion by the learned Labour Court on the issue whether the activities fall within purview of the term "industry", or not. 9. So far as the findings and conclusions recorded by learned Labour Court with regard to issue Nos. 2, 3 and 4 i.e. as to whether there was relationship of employer and employee between claimants and the petitioner and whether the service of the claimants were terminated illegally and whether claimants are entitled to reinstatement with back wages are concerned, it is relevant to mention that from the record it has emerged that present petitioner had claimed before the learned Labour Court that the concerned claimants were engaged under the scheme/project and that they were engaged for fixed period. It was also claimed that the scheme and/or project was discontinued in 1996 as the State issued notification/instruction somewhere in August 1996. 10. In this context, it is relevant to note that the petitioner did not place any contract/agreement allegedly executed by it with the claimants, on record before the learned Labour Court. Any documents in nature of and in form of the contract were neither placed on record of the learned Labour Court nor any documents are placed on record of present petitions. There is nothing on record wherefrom it can be ascertained and confirmed that the concerned claimants were engaged by virtue of the contract and/or that such contract contained specific provisions with regard to the nature of work for which the claimants were engaged and/or nature of duty which they were required to perform and/or about the period for which they were engaged. 10.1 Assuming that the claimants were engaged as part of project/scheme, then also, in absence of any specific contract or even appointment letter expressing specific provision and stipulation with regard to nature of the work for which the claimants are engaged and nature of duty/function which they were required to perform and more particularly the period/tenure for which they were engaged and that such period/tenure would expire on completion of project, it cannot be assumed that the claimants were engaged for fixed tenure and their employment was for fixed period. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that when the claimants were engaged by the petitioner they were informed that the claimants' engagement is for limited period and for specified work/project only. Any intimation to the claimants that they were engaged for the project/scheme and exclusively for the work related to some project or scheme and the arrangement/engagement would come to an end upon expiry of the period for which they were engaged/which is mentioned in the contract/appointment letter is not placed on record. 10.2 In this context reference can be had to the decision in case of S.M. Nilajkar & Ors. v. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka 2003 (4) SCC 27 . In the said decision, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed, inter alia, that:- "13. The termination of service of a workman engaged in a scheme or project may not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of Sub-clause (bb) subject to the following conditions being satisfied:- (i) that the workman was employed in a project or scheme of temporary duration; (ii) the employment was on a contract, and not as a daily-wager simplicitor, which provided inter alia that the employment shall come to an end on the expiry of the scheme or project; and (iii) the employment came to an end simultaneously with the termination of the scheme or project and consistently with the terms of the contract. (iv) the workman ought to have been apprised or made aware of the abovesaid terms by the employer at the commencement of employment." (emphasis supplied) 10.3 None of the aspects which Hon'ble Apex Court considered necessary for entertaining the contention in light of the provisions under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act, exist in present case and they are not proved and established by the petitioner. 10.4 Under the circumstances the contention and claim that the claimants were engaged only for fixed period and/or that their engagement came to an end on expiry of fixed period, is not proved and therefore cannot be accepted. 10.5 There is nothing on record to even establish that the project/scheme under which the claimants were allegedly engaged was for limited period and/or that the engagement of the claimants was for specified/fixed period. 10.6 Under the circumstances the said claim/contention cannot be accepted and the learned Labour Court rightly rejected the said contention. 10.7 It is also pertinent that it is not even the petitioner's case that the service of the workmen were terminated by way of or as a measure of penalty and disciplinary action. 11. Once the conclusion is reached that the appointment of claimants or arrangement under which they were engaged do not come within purview clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act and when it is also established that the termination of service of the claimants was not on account of any of the exception mentioned under Section 2(oo) of the Act (i.e. was neither on account of resignation or retirement on superannuation or voluntary retirement or continuous ill-health) the termination of the service would amount to retrenchment, unless the termination is effected by way of punishment/disciplinary action. As mentioned above, the service of the claimants were not terminated by way of disciplinary action and as measure of penalty. 11.1 The foregoing discussion and the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court in the award has also brought out that the service of the claimants were not terminated on account of non-renewal of contract. Actually any contract or appointment letter was not placed on record before the learned Labour Court and existence of any contract or appointment letter was not even established before learned Labour Court. The discussion and the findings recorded in the award and the foregoing discussion has also brought out that the service of the claimants were not terminated on account of punishment/disciplinary action or on account of voluntary retirement or on retirement at age of superannuation. 11.2 Thus, in present case, the termination of the service of the claimants are in nature of retrenchment. Therefore, Section 25-F of the Act will be attracted and applicable in present cases. 12. 11.2 Thus, in present case, the termination of the service of the claimants are in nature of retrenchment. Therefore, Section 25-F of the Act will be attracted and applicable in present cases. 12. In this background the question would arise as to whether the petitioner had followed the prescribed procedure at the time when the service of the claimants were discontinued and when they were relieved. 13. On this count it is relevant to mention that it has never been the case of the petitioner that it had followed procedure prescribed under Section 25F of the Act at the time when the service of the claimants were discontinued. 13.1 It is undisputed, rather admitted fact that at the time when the service of the claimants were discontinued, the notice under Section 25F(a) and/or notice under Section 25F(c) was not issued and salary in lieu of notice contemplated under Section 25F(a) was not paid. 13.2 Likewise, it is also undisputed, rather admitted fact, that at the time when the service of the claimants were discontinued the petitioner had not paid retrenchment compensation. 13.3 Thus, it is undisputed and established fact that at the time when the service of claimants came to be terminated the procedure prescribed under Section 25F was not followed. 13.4 After taking into account such facts and circumstances, learned Labour Court reached to the conclusion and recorded findings of fact that termination of service of the claimants, is in violation of Section 25F of the Act. 14. As regards the issue as to whether the claimants established that the employer employee relationship existed between them and the petitioner, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner itself claimed, in the written statement, that the claimants were engaged for implementation of project/scheme and for the work/services rendered by them they were paid remuneration by the petitioner. 14.1 Though, from the facts and circumstances discussed by the learned Labour Court in the award give-out that any contract/agreement (under which the claimants were engaged) or appointment letters were not placed on record before learned Labour Court, however, it has also emerged from the award that the petitioner did not deny or even dispute the fact that concerned claimants were performing duty as and when required by and as directed by the petitioner. According to the petitioner the claimants were engaged under specific contract (though copy of contracts are not available on record). Meaning thereby the fact that the petitioner had engaged the claimants is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that during the period when the claimants were engaged and they performed their duty i.e. before their service came to be discontinued, the claimants were paid remuneration/wages by the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the conclusion by the learned Labour Court that the claimants, except Mr. Pagrabhai Dhanabhai Parmar, established that they were workmen of the petitioner and employee and employer relationship existed between them is proved, cannot be faulted. 15. The foregoing discussion brings out that (a) the claimants except Mr. Pagrabhai Dhanabhai Parmar were employees of the petitioner and they were employed/engaged by the petitioner (b) the petitioner failed to establish that the claimants were engaged by way of specific contract and for fixed tenure (c) the petitioner also failed to establish that the claimants were engaged only for project/scheme and that they were also informed that they are engaged for project/scheme (d) the petitioner also failed to establish that the project/scheme was for limited period (e) the petitioner failed to place on record any contract or any appointment letter (f) it is also established that the provision under clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act is not attracted and applicable in present case (g) it is also established that the claimants worked with and for the petitioner from 1983 to 1996-97 i.e. for about 13/14 years (h) it was not even the case of the petitioner that the claimants had not worked for 240 days (i) it is also established that the procedure prescribed under Section 25F was not followed when the service of the claimants were discontinued (j) the learned Labour Court has also recorded specific findings of fact that the termination of the service of the claimants amounts to retrenchment and that their tenure of service of about 13/14 years cannot be considered to be of small or limited duration and that since their service were terminated in violation of Section 25F, the petitioner's action of discontinuing them is illegal and unreasonable. 16. In light of such facts, learned Labour Court recorded above mentioned conclusions and then proceeded to examine issue related to the relief prayed for by the claimants. 16. In light of such facts, learned Labour Court recorded above mentioned conclusions and then proceeded to examine issue related to the relief prayed for by the claimants. 16.1 On this count learned Labour Court has observed in the award that having regard to delay in raising dispute and for want of vacancy and in light of the fact that the project is closed the order directing the petitioner to reinstate the claimants with or without continuity of service would not be just and proper. With regard to the claim for back wages learned Labour Court has also recorded the fact that there was delay on part of the claimants. Having taken into account such facts, learned Labour Court reached to the conclusion that it would be proper to award lump sum compensation. 16.2 From the material on record and the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court it has emerged that the service of the claimants were discontinued in 1996. It is claimed that the learned Labour Court found that the termination of the service of the claimants was in breach of Section 25F of the Act. However, learned Labour Court has taken into account certain decisions by the Hon'ble Apex Court and taken into account observations and guidelines in the said decision viz. the direction for reinstatement and back wages should not be passed mechanically and automatically even in cases where termination of service of workmen is found to be in violation of statutory provision. 16.3 On this count it is relevant and necessary to note that (a) the decision of learned Labour Court of not passing any order directing the petitioner to pay back wages, is not challenged by the claimants and the claimants have accepted the decision of learned Labour Court denying the relief in form of reinstatement and back wages and also accepted the learned Labour Court's decision of granting lump sum compensation as well as the quantification, and (b) while quantifying lump sum compensation, the Court has determined compensation amount which ranges from Rs. 26,000/- to Rs. 34,000/- only. Such small/meager amount are quantified despite the fact that the tenure of service put-in by the claimants range from 12 to 15 years. It is also relevant that the decision to grant lump sum compensation is taken in lieu of reinstatement as well as backwages. 26,000/- to Rs. 34,000/- only. Such small/meager amount are quantified despite the fact that the tenure of service put-in by the claimants range from 12 to 15 years. It is also relevant that the decision to grant lump sum compensation is taken in lieu of reinstatement as well as backwages. However, in petition filed by the State any relief of revising compensation cannot be passed. More particularly in view of the fact that the workmen have accepted the award, there is neither scope nor justification to reduce the amount of compensation, much less to deny even that relief. In this background, there is no justification to interfere with award as claimed by petitioner. 16.4 When the learned Labour Court has found that the termination of the service of the claimants was in violation of mandatory provision viz. Section 25F and that therefore the termination of the service of the claimants is void ab-initio, and when the learned Labour Court has, even after having reached to such conclusion on its own, and after taking into account relevant facts of the case, restricted the relief in form of lump sum compensation and has consciously avoided, and not granted any other benefit, this Court does not find any justification in petitioner's challenge against award and/or against direction to pay lump sum compensation. 16.5 The relief granted by learned Labour Court in face of the finding that the termination of service of the claimants was in violation of Section 25F therefore ab-initio void, is the least relief which could have been granted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 16.6 It is pertinent that the facts and material on record have established that before claimants came to be discontinued they had worked for almost 14 years. The facts and material on record have also established that the termination is illegal and void-ab-initio. Despite such facts and despite of the fact that the total tenure of the service of each workman reaches from 12 to 15 years the learned Labour Court has restricted the amount of compensation within the range of Rs. 26,000/- to Rs. 34,000/-. The facts and material on record have also established that the termination is illegal and void-ab-initio. Despite such facts and despite of the fact that the total tenure of the service of each workman reaches from 12 to 15 years the learned Labour Court has restricted the amount of compensation within the range of Rs. 26,000/- to Rs. 34,000/-. The amount awarded by the learned Labour Court is the least possible amount which could have been awarded in the facts and circumstances of the case and that too when the relief in nature and in form of reinstatement and/or back wages is declined by the learned Labour Court. 16.7 In this background of facts this Court does not find any justification to interfere with the order directing payment of lump sum compensation in the range of Rs. 26,000/- to Rs. 34,000/- to the claimants who had worked for about 12 to 15 years with the petitioner. 17. The foregoing discussion establishes that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any error in the award passed by learned Labour Court and has failed to make out any ground to interfere with the impugned award. After considering the discussion in the award as well as the findings of fact and the conclusion recorded by the learned Labour Court and having regard to the supporting reasons recorded by the learned Labour Court, this Court finds that there is no error or infirmity in the award and the reasons recorded by the learned Labour Court are cogent and sufficient and are supported by the relevant documentary or material evidence. 17.1 By any stretch of imagination the impugned award and the direction passed by learned Labour Court and the conclusion recorded by the learned Labour Court and/or direction issued by the learned Labour Court cannot be said to be perverse or unjust or unreasonable or arbitrary. The petitions fail and deserve to be rejected and accordingly the petitions are rejected. Rule is discharged in each of the petition. 18. At this stage, learned Counsel for the claimants referred to the order passed by this Court in other group of petitions filed by the State against similar/identical award passed by the learned Labour Court in respect of other similarly situated claimants/workmen. Rule is discharged in each of the petition. 18. At this stage, learned Counsel for the claimants referred to the order passed by this Court in other group of petitions filed by the State against similar/identical award passed by the learned Labour Court in respect of other similarly situated claimants/workmen. He referred to the order dated 10.4.2012 passed by this Court in group of petitions being Special Civil Application No. 4283 of 2012 to 4300 of 2012 and Special Civil Application Nos. 4326 of 2012 to 4349 of 2012 and submitted that the facts of the said cases which came to be decided by common order dated 10.4.2012 are identical to the facts of present case and the claimants in the said cases were similarly situated as the claimants in present case. Therefore it would not be out of place to refer to the said order dated 10.4.2012 in Special Civil Application Nos. 4283 of 2012 and allied matters. The said order dated 10.4.2012 reads thus:- "1. Since all these petitions arise out of the same judgment and award, they are, therefore, being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. By way of these petitions, the petitioner-State of Gujarat, has challenged the common judgment and award dated 21.04.2011, passed by the Incharge Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dahod, in Reference (LCD) No. 183 of 2008 (old No. 246 of 2000), Reference (LCD) No. 184 of 2008 (old No. 247 of 2000), Reference (LCD) No. 185 of 2008 (old No. 248 of 2000), Reference (LCD) No. 187 of 2008 (Old No. 250 of 2000) to Reference (LCD) No. 193 of 2008 (old No. 256 of 2000), Reference (LCD) No. 195 of 2008 (old No. 258 of 2000) to Reference (LCD) No. 202 of 2008 (old No. 265 of 2000), whereby the Reference Court has partly allowed the said references and granted lump sum compensation to the respondents-workmen in lieu of reinstatement. 3. The brief facts leading to filing of these petitions are that the petitioner floated a Project namely Social Forestry Project for the benefit of the community. The respondent-workmen were working in the said project. However, upon closure of the said project, industrial dispute has been raised by the respondent-workmen before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. The Assistant Labour Commissioner has referred the said Reference to the Incharge Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dahod. The respondent-workmen were working in the said project. However, upon closure of the said project, industrial dispute has been raised by the respondent-workmen before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. The Assistant Labour Commissioner has referred the said Reference to the Incharge Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dahod. The Labour Court vide judgment and award dated 21.04.2011 partly allowed the said reference and granted lump sum amount in lieu of reinstatement. Against the said award present petitions are filed by the petitioner-State. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. I have gone through the impugned award and I find that the judgment and award of the Reference Court is just and appropriate and in consonance with the evidence on record. Further the learned advocate for the petitioner has taken the contention that the project was for a limited period of time and the retrenchment of the workmen is just and proper. However, from the record it is clear that provisions of section 2(00)(bb) of the I.D. Act, are not attracted and nothing has been produced on record to show that the project was for a limited period. Therefore, I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the conclusion arrived at by the Reference Court and hence, I find no reason to entertain the present petitions. 5. In the result, these petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs." 19. By the said order, this Court rejected the petitions filed by the State against similar and identical award in case of the similarly placed claimants/workmen. The petitioner has failed to make out any ground or circumstance to convince this court to differ from the view taken by this Court in the said group of petitions and to take different view. This court is also informed that the order passed by the Division Bench holding that appeals against petitions are not maintainable is carried before Hon'ble Apex Court and the said Special Leave Petitions are pending. 19.1 In view of the said submission by learned advocate for the claimants and by learned AGP it is clarified that this order shall be subject to the decision by Hon'ble Apex Court in pending Special Leave Petitions and the parties shall be governed by final decision by Hon'ble Apex Court in the pending Special Leave Petitions. With the aforesaid clarifications the petitions are disposed of. Orders accordingly.