JUDGMENT K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard learned advocate for the original claimant and learned advocate for the opponent employer. 2. The captioned two petitions are, in substance, cross petitions inasmuch as in both the petitions same award dated 13.11.2006 passed by the learned Labour Court at Junagadh in Reference Case No. 44 of 1996 is challenged. The Special Civil Application No. 50 of 2007 is filed by municipality i.e. employer whereas Special Civil Application No. 8780 of 2007 is filed by the claimant. 3. By present petition the municipality has challenged award dated 13.11.2006 to the extent and so far as learned Labour Court has directed the municipality to pay Rs. 50,000/- as lump-sum compensation to the original claimant. Whereas Special Civil Application No. 8780 of 2007 is filed by original claimant and he has challenged same award dated 13.11.2006 to the extent and so far as learned Labour Court has dined relief of reinstatement and backwages. 4. In this background learned advocates for the municipality and claimant have made common submissions and requested that the petitions may be heard together. In view of the said submission by learned advocates the captioned two petitions are heard together and decided by this common judgment. 5. So far as factual background is concerned it has emerged from the rival submissions by learned advocates that the claimant raised dispute with the allegation that the municipality is illegally terminated his service on 19.9.1995 and that therefore he should be reinstated in service with all benefits. Appropriate government referred the dispute for adjudication to learned Labour Court at Junagadh. The dispute was registered as Reference Case No. 44 of 1996. 5.1 In the statement of claim the claimant alleged that he was working as Octroi Clerk with the municipality since 31.9.1994 and that municipality illegally terminated his service on 19.9.1995 without any fault on his part. He alleged that neither any allegation was levelled against him nor inquiry was conducted against him nor retrenchment compensation was paid to him and any notice was also not issued. The claimant alleged breach of statutory provision and also alleged breach of principles of natural justice. He alleged that during the period from August 1994 to September 1995 he had worked continuously and regularly as Octroi Clerk at salary of Rs. 750/- per month and that without any reason the municipality illegally and arbitrarily terminated his service. The claimant alleged breach of statutory provision and also alleged breach of principles of natural justice. He alleged that during the period from August 1994 to September 1995 he had worked continuously and regularly as Octroi Clerk at salary of Rs. 750/- per month and that without any reason the municipality illegally and arbitrarily terminated his service. With such allegations the claimant demanded that the municipality should be directed to reinstate him in service with all benefits. 5.2 The opponent municipality opposed the reference and demand by the claimant. The opponent municipality contended that there was no relationship of employer - employee between the claimant and the municipality and the claimant was engaged on contract basis. It was also contended that the claimant was an independent contractor and not a workman and that therefore dispute raised by the claimant cannot be said to be industrial dispute and the reference is not maintainable. It was also claimed that the reference is not maintainable because the claimant would not come within the purview of term workman defined under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. The municipality also contended that as an independent contractor the claimant is not justified in claiming that he was employed by the municipality and/or that he should be reinstated in service. The municipality also contended that the reference may be rejected. 5.3 When the parties completed their pleadings learned Labour Court received and recorded oral and documentary evidence from both sides and upon conclusion of the evidence by both sides learned Labour Court heard rival submissions. After considering material available on record and rival submissions learned Labour Court passed impugned award with aforesaid directions. 6. Mr. Mehta, learned advocate for the claimant contended that the municipality failed to prove that the claimant was engaged as contractor and/or that the claimant was not workman of the municipality. He further submitted that the claimant worked with the municipality from 31.8.1994 to 19.9.1995 and that during the said period he had worked continuously and regularly and he had worked for more than 240 days however, municipality terminated his service without following procedure prescribed by law and without complying condition prescribed by Section 25F of the I.D. Act. He further submitted that the learned Labour Court accepted the case of the claimant that he was workman - employee of the municipality and not independent contractor. He further submitted that the learned Labour Court accepted the case of the claimant that he was workman - employee of the municipality and not independent contractor. He further submitted that the learned Labour Court accepted case of the claimant that his service was terminated without payment of compensation and in breach of Section 25F of the I.D. Act. According to Mr. Mehta, learned advocate for the original claimant the learned Labour Court committed error in not granting relief in form of reinstatement and backwages and award passed by the learned Labour Court is arbitrary inasmuch as even after recording findings and conclusion in favour of the workman learned Labour Court without any justification denied relief of reinstatement and awarded lumpsum compensation. He submitted that the direction by the learned Labour Court is arbitrary and unjustified and the employer may be directed to reinstate the claimant in service. 7. Mr. Devnani, learned advocate for the municipality submitted that the claimant failed to prove that he was appointed by the municipality. He submitted that there was no material on record before learned Labour Court to hold that the claimant was employed by the municipality and/or that he worked as octroi clerk. He submitted that the conclusion by learned Labour Court that the claimant was employee of the municipality and the learned Labour Court's decision of rejecting the case of the municipality that the claimant was independent contractor, is unjustified and it is outcome of surmises and conjectures without any evidence in support of its conclusion. He submitted that the claimant was never appointed by the municipality and therefore reference was not maintainable and dispute could not have been entertained and adjudicated by the learned Labour Court. He also submitted that the finding about breach of Section 25F of I.D. Act about status of the claimant are without any evidence and therefore perverse. He submitted that the learned Labour Court's direction that the claimant should be paid Rs. 50,000/- towards lump-sum compensation is arbitrary and unreasonable. He also pleaded that the financial position of the municipality is very weak and therefore also the direction may be set aside. 8. I have considered rival submissions and the award challenged by the claimant and the employer. 9. As mentioned earlier, very same award is placed under challenge by the claimant as well as employer and both parties are dissatisfied with the award. 8. I have considered rival submissions and the award challenged by the claimant and the employer. 9. As mentioned earlier, very same award is placed under challenge by the claimant as well as employer and both parties are dissatisfied with the award. In such circumstances ordinarily the case would be remanded to the learned Trial Court for fresh decision. 9.1 However, in view of the facts and circumstances of present case the said course of action is not justified. 9.2 On this count it is necessary to keep in focus the fact that (a) the dispute is more than 20 years old inasmuch as the dispute arose in 1995 when the claimant came to be allegedly terminated by the municipality (b) almost 11 years have passed since learned Labour Court passed the award (c) even if the claim and allegation by the claimant are accepted on face value then also total tenure of his service comes to only 1 year (d) according to the claimant he was engaged as Octroi Clerk. Upon abolition of octroi in the State, now octroi department and/or post of octroi clerk does not exist. 9.3 For all these reasons, there is no justification to remand the proceedings, though award is challenged by both sides. 10. The same reason is important factor and relevant reason for the Court to hold that actually there is no basis or justification to interfere with the final award of the learned Labour Court vis. to award lump sum compensation to the claimant. 11. In this context it is pertinent to note that the claimant alleged before learned Labour Court that he was appointed as Octroi Clerk w.e.f. 31.8.1994. 11.1 The claimant, however, failed to place on record before learned Labour Court any material to demonstrate that he was ever appointed by the municipality much less, as octroi clerk. 11.2 The claimant also failed to place on record appointment order or payslip or any other documents to establish that he was appointed by the municipality in any capacity. 11.3 In any case the claimant was never engaged after following procedure prescribed for selection and recruitment. 11.4 Besides this, it is also relevant to keep in focus that even if all allegations by the claimant are assumed to be correct then also total tenure of the claimant's service with the municipality would be only 12 months and few days. 11.3 In any case the claimant was never engaged after following procedure prescribed for selection and recruitment. 11.4 Besides this, it is also relevant to keep in focus that even if all allegations by the claimant are assumed to be correct then also total tenure of the claimant's service with the municipality would be only 12 months and few days. 11.5 It also cannot be overlooked that octroi is abolished and consequently post of octroi clerk and octroi department from all local body/authority are abolished and the said post and department do not exist. 12. So far as case of the municipality is concerned, it cannot be overlooked that the municipality failed to place any material on record. 12.1 It is pertinent that the municipality claimed that the claimant worked as independent contractor and that he cannot be termed as workman. 12.2 The said submissions itself impliedly admits the fact that the claimant had worked with the municipality. The dispute would be as to whether he worked as workman or contractor. 12.3 The municipality claimed before the learned Labour Court that the claimant worked as independent contractor. 12.4 However, municipality also failed to place on record any contract or deed/agreement under which the claimant was engaged as contractor. The municipality is statutory body and if it enters into any contract with any person or body then it can enter into such contract only in the manner prescribed by law. However, in present case, the municipality failed to place on record before learned Labour Court any deed or agreement or contract under which the claimant was allegedly engaged as contractor. 12.5 In this view of the matter, adverse inference drawn by learned Labour Court cannot be faulted. 13. Further, the municipality did not dispute the case of the claimant that he worked with the municipality for almost 12 months. 14. The municipality also did not raise any dispute with regard to the attendance of the claimant i.e. the municipality never claimed that the total attendance of the claimant was less than 240 days. Under the circumstances, the conclusion by the learned Labour Court that the condition prescribed under Section 25F of the I.D. Act were attracted and applicable in present case and not complied by the municipality, cannot be faulted. 15. Under the circumstances, the conclusion by the learned Labour Court that the condition prescribed under Section 25F of the I.D. Act were attracted and applicable in present case and not complied by the municipality, cannot be faulted. 15. Above discussion brings out that (a) conclusion by the learned Labour Court that claimant worked with the municipality cannot be faulted. Actually the said aspect emerges from implied admission by the municipality (b) the fact that the tenure during which the claimant worked with the municipality is 12 months is also not in dispute. (c) thus, the condition under Section 25F were attracted and applicable in present case (d) undisputedly the municipality had not followed procedure prescribed under Section 25F and/or Rule 81 of the Gujarat Industrial Disputes Rules and that therefore disengagement of the claimant without complying statutory condition amount to violation of Section 25F and Rule 81. 16. In that view of the matter, question which would arise is about appropriate relief. 17. On this count Mr. Mehta, learned advocate for the claimant is, to some extent justified in his contention that when breach of statutory provision is established then the relief by way of reinstatement and backwages should follow. 18. However, it cannot be overlooked that (a) total tenure of claimant with the municipality was of only 12 months (b) the claimant was not engaged after following procedure prescribed for recruitment and (c) upon abolition of octroi, octroi department and post of octroi clerk does not survive/exist and (d) therefore the claim for reinstatement would not be justified and cannot be granted. Even otherwise, having regard to the fact that total tenure of claimant with the municipality was only one year the direction to reinstate the claimant would even otherwise also not be justified (e) for the same reason the direction to pay full backwages or entire period i.e. from 1996 to 2006 would also not be justified. 18.1 From the award it appears that the learned Labour Court has taken into account all these aspects and arrived at legally reasonable and sustainable conclusion of awarding lump sum compensation. 18.2 In light of the fact and circumstances of present case learned Labour Court's final decision to award lump sum compensation is just and reasonable and it cannot be faulted. 18.2 In light of the fact and circumstances of present case learned Labour Court's final decision to award lump sum compensation is just and reasonable and it cannot be faulted. 18.3 From the award it appears that the learned Labour Court has taken into account the length of service of the claimant and the salary which was paid to the claimant at the relevant time and on that basis learned Labour Court quantified lump sum compensation. When the amount quantified by learned Labour Court is examined in light of total tenure of claimant's service and salary which he was paid at the relevant time, amount of compensation, by any yardstick cannot be said to be inadequate. 19. In light of the foregoing discussion and for the reason mentioned and discussed above it has emerged that there is no justification to interfere with the final conclusion and direction by the learned labour Court i.e. to award lump sum compensation instead of reinstatement and backwages as well as final conclusion with regard to quantum of lump sum compensation. 19.1 The amount which is awarded by learned Labour Court i.e. Rs. 50,000/- is eminently justified quantification having regard to the length of claimant's service (viz. only one year) and the claimant's salary at the relevant time (i.e. Rs. 750/- per month). 20. Under the circumstances there is no justification to disturb the impugned award and final conclusion and decision by the learned Labour Court. 20.1 Therefore, the petition filed by the municipality and petition filed by the claimant do not deserve to be entertained. Consequently Special Civil application No. 50 of 2007 and Special Civil Application No. 8780 of 2007 are not accepted and the same are rejected. Rule is discharged in both the petitions. Ad-interim/interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith. Orders accordingly.