JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Modi, learned advocate for the respondent. 2. In present petition, the petitioner has placed under challenge award dated 4.10.2006 passed by the learned Labour Court in Reference (LCA) No. 366 of 1994 whereby the learned Labour Court directed present petitioner to reinstate the respondent on his original post with 20% backwages. 3. So far as factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record that the respondent herein raised industrial dispute on the ground that his service was illegally terminated by the opponent employer. The appropriate Government referred the dispute for adjudication to the learned Labour Court. Before the learned Labour Court the claimant filed his statement of claim with the allegation that he was working with the opponent employer since last 3 years as Peon at salary of Rs. 850/- per month and he was performing his duties diligently, however, the opponent terminated his service without any reason and without any fault on his part. He also alleged that his service came to be terminated without prescribing any law and in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. The opponent employer, i.e. present petitioner opposed the reference. In its written statement, the opponent employer claimed that the respondent was not engaged in accordance with the prescribed Rules for selection and recruitment. It also claimed that he was engaged on ad hoc basis for casual work and the claimant did not work with the opponent employer regularly or continuously inasmuch as he was called for work only when need arose, i.e. during exigency. The parties placed oral as well as documentary evidence before the learned Labour Court. Upon conclusion of stage of evidence, the learned Labour Court heard rival submissions by contesting parties and after considering material on record, the learned Labour Court passed award with above mentioned direction. The said award is challenged in present petition. 5. Mr. Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had not worked for 240 days in any year, more particularly in preceding 12 months. The said award is challenged in present petition. 5. Mr. Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had not worked for 240 days in any year, more particularly in preceding 12 months. He also submitted that the claimant never worked regularly or continuously with the petitioner and that he was engaged only on account of exigency of work on ad hoc basis and that, therefore, the conclusions recorded by the learned Labour Court are incorrect and the directions passed by the learned Labour Court are unjustified. Mr. Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner also contended that the petitioner failed to establish that he worked continuously and/or he worked 240 days in preceding 12 months. He also submitted that the conclusion that the petitioner committed breach of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H are erroneous and incorrect and that, therefore, the award deserves to be set aside. 6. Learned advocate for the claimant supported the award and submitted that from the material available on record and in light of evidence which was placed by both parties, the learned Labour Court has recorded finding of fact that the claimant had worked for 240 days. It was proved before the learned Labour Court that the claimant worked for 240 days. It was also established that the claimant's service came to be terminated without following prescribed procedure and in violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as neither opportunity of hearing was granted nor any procedure prescribed under section 25F or 25G was followed. He also submitted that subsequently, the petitioner had engaged other persons for work, however, the claimant was not called for work. According to learned advocate for the respondent, there is no error in the award and therefore, the petition may not be entertained. 7. I have considered rival submissions and material available on record as well as the impugned award. 8. It is necessary to mention that while admitting the petition, the Court had granted interim relief by way of stay against the impugned award only with regard to the direction to pay 20% backwages and interim relief against the direction to reinstate the claimant was not granted by the Court. Actually, the Court directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent/claimant. 9. Actually, the Court directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent/claimant. 9. In that view of the matter, the claimant was reinstated on his original post and he continued in service until his sad demise in February 2012 while in service. 10. In this view of the matter, now the only question which survives is with regard to the direction to pay 20% backwages. 11. So far as the impugned award is concerned, on reading the award it comes out that the learned Labour Court has discussed at length the evidence which was placed on record by both the sides and upon evaluation of evidence, the learned Labour Court reached to the finding of fact that the claimant had worked for 240 days. Even if the petitioner's objection and contention against the said finding of fact were to be entertained by this Court, then also the petitioner cannot run away from the fact that at the time when the service of the claimant was discontinued, the procedure prescribed under section 25G and/or Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules were not followed inasmuch as principle of seniority was not observed and complied and seniority list was not displayed in accordance with Rule 81. 12. There is no material on record to refute or assail the said finding of fact by the learned Labour Court. 13. Thus, the finding by the learned Labour Court that the petitioner committed breach of section 25G is unassailable. 14. Likewise, the learned Labour Court has also recorded finding that the petitioner committed breach of section 25H inasmuch as when other persons are engaged for similar work, the claimant was not called forward. The petitioner could not show any material from record which could convince the Court to interfere with said conclusion. 15. In this view of the matter, even if the petitioner's objection against the finding recorded by the learned Labour Court with reference to section 25F are to be accepted, then also the finding recorded by the learned Labour Court with reference to breach of sections 25G and 25H would continue to stare in the face of the petitioner. 16. Under the circumstances, there is no reason or justification to interfere with the impugned award. 17. Besides this, as mentioned above, the petitioner complied the direction to reinstate the workman in light of this Court's order dated 9.8.2007. 16. Under the circumstances, there is no reason or justification to interfere with the impugned award. 17. Besides this, as mentioned above, the petitioner complied the direction to reinstate the workman in light of this Court's order dated 9.8.2007. Under the circumstances, even otherwise, there is no justification to interfere with the said direction, more particularly after sad demise of the respondent. 18. When it is found that the award does not suffer from any error and finding of fact do not warrant any interference, then there would not be any justification to interfere with the direction to pay 20% backwages, more particularly when the petitioner has failed to establish that in the interregnum, the claimant was gainfully employed. 19. Under the circumstances, this Court does not find any reason or justification to interfere with the impugned award. Consequently, the petition fails and deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, the petition is rejected. Rule is discharged.