JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Meena, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Rathod, learned advocate for the respondents. 2. In present group of petitions the petitioner has challenged the awards dated. 8.12.2010, 6.1.2011, 16.3.2011, 16.3.2011, 2.12.2010, 2.12.2010, 22.11.2010, 3.12.2010, 2.12.2010 & 3.12.2010 passed by learned Labour Court Kutch at Bhuj in reference cases preferred by present respondents (hereinafter referred to as the "concerned claimants/workmen" in each reference cases). 3. The concerned claimants raised industrial dispute against allegedly illegal termination of their services by the petitioner board. 3.1 The dispute came to be referred to the learned Labour Court Kutch at Bhuj by the appropriate Government. The orders of reference culminated into different reference cases before the learned Labour Court. 3.2 Below mentioned statement reflects compilation of relevant details. The said details reads thus:- SCA No. Name of Workmen Date of Award Direction by the Learned Court Delay in Reference Retrenchment Compensation paid (Rs.) 7549/1 Jitubha Mamubha Jadeja 06/01/11 Reinstatement on original post along with continuity of service and 25 % back wages 4 months Not paid 1707/1 Daud Juma 08/12/10 Reinstated with continuity 12 months Approx 15,593/- 1708/12 Merubha Rajubha Waghela 03/12/10 Reinstatement with continuity 12 months Approx 18,427//- 1710/12 Bhupatsingh B. Waghela 02/12/10 Reinstatement with continuity 12 months Approx 15,593/- 1712/12 Haja Ratha Ahir 03/12/10 Reinstatement with continuity 12 months Approx 12,758/- 1834//12 Gulabsingh Dhulji Sodha 22/11/10 Reinstatement with continuity 12 months Approx 17,010/- 1910/12 Dilip Nondha Makwana 02/12/10 Reinstatement with continuity 12 months Approx 14,175/- 2035/10 Ravubha Vakaji Sodha 02/12/10 Reinstatement with continuity 12 months Approx 17,010/- 2154/12 Mahipatsingh Gulabsingh Jadeja 16/03/11 Reinstatement with continuity 12 months Approx 21,557/- 2157/12 Mohan Bhura Parmar 16/03/11 Reinstatement with continuity 12 months Approx 17,304/- 4. During the proceedings before learned Labour Court the concerned claimants filed their statements of claim and alleged, inter alia, that their services were illegally terminated and at the time when their services were terminated the petitioner board had not issued notice contemplated under Section 25F(a) or Section 25F(c) and the petitioner board also not paid retrenchment compensation under Section 25F. It was also alleged that the employer did not comply principles of natural justice and opportunity of hearing was not granted. The workmen alleged that their services were terminated without following any procedure prescribed by law. 5. It was also alleged that the employer did not comply principles of natural justice and opportunity of hearing was not granted. The workmen alleged that their services were terminated without following any procedure prescribed by law. 5. The reference cases were opposed by the petitioner board who claimed that the concerned claimants were employed on ad hoc basis and for temporary/casual work and they were not appointed after following procedure for selection and recruitment. It was also claimed that the concerned claimants were working on daily wage basis and that they had no right on the post or appointment. With regard to certain claimants the petitioner board claimed that it had paid retrenchment compensation and the allegation that the procedure under Section 25F was not followed is incorrect. The petitioner board also claimed that since concerned claimants were working on daily wage basis and they were not engaged after following procedure for selection and recruitment there was no need to comply the provision under Section 25F and the action of the petitioner board of not engaging the concerned claimants cannot be termed as termination, much less, illegal termination inasmuch as the services of the concerned claimants came to an end automatically in view of nature of appointment. 6. During the proceedings before learned Labour Court the deposition of the concerned claimants were recorded. The concerned claimants as well as the petitioner board placed documents on record which were accepted by the learned Labour Court. The petitioner board also examined witness viz. Mr. M.G. Badole, Deputy Executive Engineer. 7. After the stage of recording evidence was completed the learned Labour Court heard the submissions by learned advocate for the claimants and learned advocate for the petitioner board. Thereafter upon taking into account the evidence on record and submissions by learned advocates for the contesting parties, learned Labour Court reached to the conclusion that the petitioner board terminated the services of the concerned claimants and that the services of the concerned claimants were terminated in violation of Section 25F, 25G and 25H. Having reached to such conclusion learned Labour Court passed awards directing the petitioner board to reinstate the concerned claimants with continuity of service. In case of one Mr. Jitubha Jadeja learned Labour Court directed the petitioner to reinstate the said workman on his original post with continuity of service as well as 25% backwages. Having reached to such conclusion learned Labour Court passed awards directing the petitioner board to reinstate the concerned claimants with continuity of service. In case of one Mr. Jitubha Jadeja learned Labour Court directed the petitioner to reinstate the said workman on his original post with continuity of service as well as 25% backwages. In other reference cases the learned Labour Court, by respective awards, directed the petitioner to reinstate the workmen with continuity of service however the learned Labour Court denied the relief of backwages. 7.1 Except in one reference case i.e. Reference (L.C.B.) Case No. 71 of 1999 learned Labour Court denied the relief of back wages and in all other reference cases learned Labour Court directed the petitioner to reinstate the concerned claimants with continuity of service, however, without back wages. Feeling aggrieved by the said awards the petitioner board has taken out present petitions. 8. During hearing of this group of petitions Mr. Meena, learned advocate for the petitioner board submitted that the learned Labour Court has committed apparent and material error while deciding the reference cases and has failed to take into account the evidence of the petitioner board or has misconstrued the evidence as well as relevant provision. Mr. Meena, learned advocate for the petitioner board submitted that on account of misconstruction of the provision under the Act as well as misreading the evidence, learned Labour Court has reached to erroneous conclusions which are not justifiable or sustainable and they are contrary to evidence on record. Mr. Meena, learned advocate for the petitioner board submitted that the learned Labour Court committed material error in directing the board to reinstate the concerned claimants by ignoring the fact that the concerned claimants were engaged only on daily wage basis and/or for casual work and there was no justification to direct the petitioner to reinstate the concerned claimants. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Court failed to consider that the Board had paid compensation to the concerned claimants except in one case. Mr. Meena, learned advocate for the petitioner board submitted that learned Labour Court also failed to appreciate that the concerned claimants had not worked for 240 days in preceding 12 months. Mr. Meena, learned advocate for the petitioner board submitted that the direction granting continuity of service is also unjustified. Mr. Mr. Meena, learned advocate for the petitioner board submitted that learned Labour Court also failed to appreciate that the concerned claimants had not worked for 240 days in preceding 12 months. Mr. Meena, learned advocate for the petitioner board submitted that the direction granting continuity of service is also unjustified. Mr. Meena, learned advocate for the petitioner board submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the awards are not sustainable and may be set aside. 9. Mr. Rathod, learned advocate for the concerned claimants opposed the submissions by Mr. Meena, learned advocate for the petitioner and submitted that the claimants had worked with the petitioner board for more than 9/10 years and that during their tenure they had worked for more than 240 days in each year. Mr. Rathod, learned advocate for the concerned claimants submitted that the services of the concerned claimants were terminated without following procedure prescribed by law. Mr. Rathod, learned advocate for the concerned claimants submitted that the petitioner failed before learned Labour Court to establish that at the time when the services of the concerned claimants were terminated retrenchment compensation as contemplated under Section 25F was paid. Mr. Rathod, learned advocate for the concerned claimants also emphasized that at the time when the services of the concerned claimants were terminated the seniority list was not prepared and notified in accordance with Rule 81 and that the services of the concerned claimants were terminated in violation of Section 25G. Mr. Rathod, learned advocate for the concerned claimants submitted that in certain cases the petitioner board had engaged other persons after the concerned claimants were relieved. He submitted that therefore there is no error in the award and in the conclusions recorded by learned Labour Court. Mr. Rathod, learned advocate for the concerned claimants submitted that the learned Labour Court has recorded findings of fact which are based on the evidence on record and this Court would not interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the learned Labour Court. Mr. Mr. Rathod, learned advocate for the concerned claimants submitted that the learned Labour Court has recorded findings of fact which are based on the evidence on record and this Court would not interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the learned Labour Court. Mr. Rathod, learned advocate for the concerned claimants submitted that on the basis of the evidence on record the learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the services of the concerned claimants were terminated in violation of Section 25F and 25G and that therefore the concerned claimants ought to have been reinstated with back wages however learned Labour Court did not find it appropriate to award any back wages except in one case and the concerned claimants have accepted the said direction. He also submitted that when the learned Labour Court has, after considering the material on record, found it appropriate and justified to direct the petitioner board to reinstate the concerned claimants, with continuity of service then the said direction may not be disturbed. 10. I have considered the material on record and submissions by learned advocate for the petitioner and concerned claimants. 11. In light of the evidence available on record learned Labour Court has reached to the conclusion and recorded findings of fact that: (a) the concerned claimants were employed by the petitioner board; (b) the concerned claimants had worked for more than 9 years with the petitioner board; (c) the petitioner board failed to place on record muster roll or attendance register and that therefore it was necessary to draw adverse inference to the effect that the concerned claimants had worked for 240 days; (d) at the time when the services of the concerned claimants were terminated retrenchment compensation was not paid and thereby the condition prescribed under Section 25F was violated; (e) before the services of the concerned claimants were terminated the petitioner board had not prepared and displayed seniority list and thereby the condition under Rule 81 was violated; (f) the concerned claimants were retrenched whereas other persons junior to the concerned claimants were continued in service. 12. The said findings of fact are based on material which was available on record of the learned Court. The findings are supported by evidence and sufficient and cogent reasons. There is no reason or material on record to persuade and convince the Court to differ with and set aside the findings. 12. The said findings of fact are based on material which was available on record of the learned Court. The findings are supported by evidence and sufficient and cogent reasons. There is no reason or material on record to persuade and convince the Court to differ with and set aside the findings. The petitioner has failed to make out ground and/or to show any evidence against the findings and conclusions recorded by the Court. 13. Having reached to aforesaid findings of fact and conclusion the learned Labour Court proceeded to consider the issue about appropriate relief. Except in Reference (L.C.B.) Case No. 71 of 1999 learned Labour Court reached to the conclusion that the order directing payment of back wages would not be justifiable relief and such relief did not deserve to be granted. In that view of the matter learned Labour Court declined to grant relief of back wages to the concerned claimants (except in one case) and instead learned Labour Court directed the petitioner board to reinstate the concerned claimant with continuity of service. 14. So far as petitioner's grievance against the order by the learned Labour Court directing the petitioner to reinstate the claimants is concerned, it is necessary to note that though it is true that the respondents were engaged on daily wage basis and without following procedure prescribed for selection and recruitment, the fact that the respondents were continued in service for almost 9 or 10 years and that during the said period the respondents were engaged continuously, cannot be ignored. Likewise, the fact that though the first condition viz. that the respondents had worked for more than 12 months and second condition for attracting Section 25F of the Act viz. service for 240 days in preceding 12 months as per findings of the learned Labour Court were also complied, the petitioner was obliged to pay retrenchment compensation to the respondents at the time of their retrenchment and in accordance with provision under Section 25F of the Act. 14.1 Learned Counsel for the petitioner tried to claim that except in one case retrenchment compensation was paid to all other claimants, however, learned Counsel for the petitioner failed to establish that the compensation was paid to the claimants immediately before or at the time of retrenchment i.e. in accordance with condition prescribed under Section 25F of the Act. 14.1 Learned Counsel for the petitioner tried to claim that except in one case retrenchment compensation was paid to all other claimants, however, learned Counsel for the petitioner failed to establish that the compensation was paid to the claimants immediately before or at the time of retrenchment i.e. in accordance with condition prescribed under Section 25F of the Act. The said provision obliges the employer to pay retrenchment compensation to the employee who is to be retrenched and that such compensation should be paid before or atleast at the time when the retrenchment is effected i.e. the date on which the retrenchment becomes effective. In present case the learned Counsel for the petitioner had to concede that the compensation amount was not paid to one claimant and in case of other claimants the retrenchment compensation amount was paid after the date from which the retrenchment became effective. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not dispute and/or could not successfully assail the conclusion by the learned Labour Court that retrenchment compensation amounts were not paid in accordance with Section 25F of the Act and that in cases where such amount is forwarded to the claimants, that was done belatedly i.e. after the date on which the retrenchment became effective. 14.2 Besides this, learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not dispute the fact and/or could not successfully assail the conclusion that before effecting retrenchment of the concerned claimant the petitioner had not prepared and had not displayed seniority list as contemplated under Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules 1961. Thus, the retrenchment of the concerned claimants was, undisputedly effected in violation of Rule 81. 14.3 In the decision of L. Robert D'Souza vs. Executive Engineer, Southern Railway (1982) 1 SCC 645 , Hon'ble Apex Court held that even daily rated workman would be entitled to the protection of Section 25F of the Act if he had worked continuously for period of one year or more. 14.4 The said decision and principle is reiterated by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Devinder Singh vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur (2011) 6 SCC 584 . 14.4 The said decision and principle is reiterated by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Devinder Singh vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur (2011) 6 SCC 584 . When the facts of the case, particularly the findings of fact recorded by the learned labour Court which are summarized in paragraph No. 11 of this decision are considered in light of the observation by the Apex Court in abovementioned decision, it becomes clear that the respondent's termination was effected in violation of Section 25F of the Act and Rule 81. When the said aspect and more particularly the findings of fact recorded by learned Court are taken into account and when the decision in case of Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak (2013) 10 SCC 324 and the observation by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Devinder Singh (supra) are taken into account then it gets established that the learned Labour Court's order directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent cannot be faulted. 14.5 Further in view of the submission by learned advocate for the petitioner and respondent that the respondent board has already reinstated all claimants during the pendency of the petition, there is no justification to interfere with the learned Labour Court's order directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent. 15. In view of the fact that the concerned claimants were engaged without following procedure prescribed for selection and recruitment and also having regard to the fact that the concerned claimants were not appointed on any vacancy or post on permanent establishment and also having regard to the fact that the concerned claimants were engaged on daily wage basis in absence of any vacancy and without following any procedure and having regard to the delay caused in raising the dispute the order directing board to grant continuity of service is unjustified and cannot be sustained. 15.1 However, at the same time, the fact that before the termination of their service the concerned claimants had worked for substantial period i.e. 9 to 10 years it would not be proper that the said service may wipe out even for the purpose of gratuity. Therefore while setting aside the direction granting continuity of service it is clarified that only for the purpose of gratuity the services of the concerned claimants shall be considered as continuous, and not for any other purpose. 16. Therefore while setting aside the direction granting continuity of service it is clarified that only for the purpose of gratuity the services of the concerned claimants shall be considered as continuous, and not for any other purpose. 16. As mentioned earlier except in one case i.e. Reference (L.C.B.) Case No. 71 of 1999 learned Labour Court has not granted back wages. From the operative parts of the respective orders it has emerged that in all cases except one case i.e. except in case of Mr. J.M. Jadeja, learned Labour Court has not granted backwages in favour of any other claimants. 16.1 The direction granting continuity of service is not found sustainable and therefore the said direction is set aside. Since the direction to pay backwages are not granted in respect of other claimants, any clarification is not required to be made. 16.2 So far as the case of Mr. Jadeja is concerned, having regard to the fact that all claimants including Mr. Jadeja were engaged without following the procedure prescribed for selection and recruitment and the fact that they were not appointed on any permanent post and they were engaged only as daily wagers, the order directing payment of backwages, even in one case cannot be sustained and the said direction deserves to be set aside and accordingly the said direction is hereby set aside. 17. At the time of hearing learned advocate for the petitioner as well as concerned claimants clarified that the petitioner board has reinstated all the claimants during pendency of the petition. It is also clarified by learned advocates that the claimants are, as of now working with the petitioner board since 2012. Meaning thereby since last about 4 years the claimants are in the employment with the petitioner board. Under the circumstances there is no justification to interfere with the order directing reinstatement. 18. In the result the petitions are partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. The order directing continuity of service is set aside (except for the purpose of gratuity). The direction to pay 25% back wages in Reference (L.C.B.) Case No. 71 of 1999 is set aside. The order directing reinstatement is not interfered with. 19. At this stage Mr. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. The order directing continuity of service is set aside (except for the purpose of gratuity). The direction to pay 25% back wages in Reference (L.C.B.) Case No. 71 of 1999 is set aside. The order directing reinstatement is not interfered with. 19. At this stage Mr. Meena, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that except in one case the petitioner board had paid retrenchment compensation to the claimants and that therefore when the petitioner is directed to reinstate the claimants and when the petitioner had already reinstated the claimants, the petitioner may be permitted to adjust the amount paid to the claimants towards retrenchment compensation in installments from their salary. 19.1 Mr. Rathod, learned advocate for the respondents fairly submitted that there cannot be any objection by the claimants so far as request for adjustment of the amount paid towards retrenchment is concerned and the respondents do not have any objection in respect of such action by the petitioner and the petitioner may deduct/adjust the amount paid to the concerned claimants towards retrenchment compensation, in appropriate equal installments from the salary of the concerned claimants. 19.2 Therefore it will be open to the petitioner to pass appropriate order for recovery/refund of the amount paid towards compensation and notice pay and to deduct/adjust the said amount from their respective salary, however such recovery and deduction/adjustment shall be done in such number of installments as may be just and appropriate considering total wages (monthly wage) and balance years of service and in accordance with applicable rules and provisions of law. With the aforesaid clarifications the petitions are disposed of.