JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Gohil, learned advocate for the respondent. 2. In present petition, the petitioner has challenged award dated 11.4.2007 passed by the learned Labour Court at Bharuch in Reference (LCB) No. 335 of 2004 whereby the learned Labour Court dismissed the reference and did not grant relief prayed for by present petitioner. 3. So far as factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record of the petition and the award and rival submissions, that the petitioner herein raised industrial dispute with the allegation that the opponent Nigam (i.e. present respondent) illegally terminated his service. Appropriate Government referred the dispute for adjudication to the learned Labour Court at Bharuch. The dispute was registered as Reference (LCB) No. 335 of 2004. 3.1 During the proceedings before the learned Labour Court, the petitioner herein filed statement of claim with the allegation that he was employed by the opponent Nigam and he was working as Watchman at salary of Rs. 1,340/- per month and he was a permanent employee. He also alleged that he worked diligently, continuously and regularly and there was no complaint against him. He alleged that his attendance was marked, but attendance card was not supplied. He also alleged that he was paid salary every month, but pay slip was not provided. He also alleged that the Nigam had not issued identity card. He alleged that in connection with homicide committed on 5.3.1992 in a village situate at distance of 12 kms. from Kevadiya Colony, he was arrested by police on 9.3.1992 and he was detained in custody and that after about 4 months, he was enlarged on bail. He alleged that after he was released on bail, he reported for duty, however, he was not allowed to resume the duties and subsequently, vide order dated 9.3.1992 he was informed that he cannot be allowed to resume duty unless he is acquitted from criminal case. He further claimed that on conclusion of the trial in Criminal Case No. 86 of 1999 vide judgment dated 25.4.2000, he was acquitted from the criminal case and thereafter he requested the Nigam to reinstate him in service, however, he was not reinstated and subsequently, the Nigam terminated his service vide order dated 20.8.2004 and therefore, he raised dispute. He further claimed that on conclusion of the trial in Criminal Case No. 86 of 1999 vide judgment dated 25.4.2000, he was acquitted from the criminal case and thereafter he requested the Nigam to reinstate him in service, however, he was not reinstated and subsequently, the Nigam terminated his service vide order dated 20.8.2004 and therefore, he raised dispute. With the said allegation, the claimant, present petitioner demanded that he should be reinstated in service. 3.2 The Nigam opposed the reference and the demand. In its reply, the Nigam stated relevant facts. The Nigam contended before the learned Labour Court that actually, the claimant was engaged as stopgap arrangement on ad hoc and daily wage basis for temporary period in capacity as Watchman. The Nigam also contended that the claimant was engaged on account of exigency of work and that he was engaged without following procedure prescribed under the Rules. The Nigam also contended that the claimant was not engaged on account of any clear vacancy on permanent post on sanctioned set up of the Nigam, but he was engaged for limited period for project work. The Nigam also mentioned the facts related to the claimant's arrest in criminal offence. The Nigam also mentioned the fact that the claimant had not worked for 240 days in any year and that on completion of project work, the claimant was relieved from service with payment of retrenchment compensation in accordance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and that, therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the action of the Nigam. With the said submission, the Nigam requested that the reference may be dismissed. 3.3 When the parties completed their pleadings, the learned Labour Court received and recorded evidence from both sides and on completion of stage of evidence by both sides, the learned Labour Court heard rival submissions by learned advocates for the claimant and the Nigam. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court considered material available on record and rival submissions and passed the award whereby the learned Labour Court rejected the reference having found that the Nigam had diligently complied the condition under Section 25F and that there was no illegality in the action of the Nigam. 4. Mr. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court considered material available on record and rival submissions and passed the award whereby the learned Labour Court rejected the reference having found that the Nigam had diligently complied the condition under Section 25F and that there was no illegality in the action of the Nigam. 4. Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the claimant assailed the impugned award on the ground that the claimant's service was terminated on the ground that he was arrested in criminal case and that, therefore, when he came to be acquitted in the criminal case, the Nigam should have reinstated him, however, the learned Labour Court failed to appreciate that the opponent Nigam did not reinstate him, despite the fact that the learned trial Court acquitted in criminal case. He also submitted that the Nigam terminated his service without any fault on his part and that, therefore, the learned Labour Court ought to have directed the Nigam to reinstate the claimant with appropriate direction regarding backwages. He also submitted that the learned Labour Court failed to appreciate that the claimant was working as permanent employee and therefore, upon acquittal by the criminal case, he should have been reinstated. 5. Mr. Gohil, learned advocate for the Nigam opposed the submissions by learned advocate for the petitioner. He asserted that the claimant worked with the Nigam for temporary period on daily wage basis and he was not a permanent workman, but he was engaged for casual work on ad hoc basis without following procedure prescribed under the Rules. He also emphasized the fact that the claimant was arrested by police in criminal case registered in respect of offence under Section 302 of IPC. Mr. Gohil, learned advocate for the Nigam submitted that it is true that the claimant was discharged on bail after detention in custody for 4 months and subsequently, upon completion of trial, the claimant came to be acquitted. However, having regard to long and continuous absence of the claimant coupled with the fact that some time after the claimant came to be acquitted, the work for which the claimant was originally engaged, was not available, he could not be engaged and that, therefore, his service was discontinued after following procedure prescribed under Section 25F of the Act, i.e. after paying notice pay and retrenchment compensation. He submitted that after appreciation of evidence, the learned Labour Court has found that the Nigam had diligently complied the requirements prescribed under Section 25F of the Act and therefore, the learned Labour Court dismissed the reference. According to learned advocate for the Nigam, there is no error in the award passed by the learned Labour Court and the petition therefore may be dismissed. 6. I have considered rival submissions and material available on record as well as impugned award. 7. At the outset, it is necessary to mention that actually, the petition deserves to be dismissed without further discussion on any aspect in view of the suppression of fact by the claimant. 7.1 The claimant has not mentioned in the petition that while terminating his service vide order dated 20.8.2004, the Nigam paid retrenchment compensation and notice pay. 7.2 The said fact is neither mentioned in the petition and during his submissions learned advocate for the claimant also did not clarify the said factual aspect. 7.3 It was only during submission by learned advocate for the Nigam and when learned advocate for the Nigam pointed out the said fact from the observations by the learned Labour Court in the award that the learned advocate for the petitioner acknowledged the fact and apologized for not mentioning the details related to payment of compensation in the petition or during submissions. In this view of the matter, the petition deserves to be dismissed for the aforesaid reason. 8. However, this Court deems it fit to examine the merits of the petitioner's challenge against the award. 9. From the discussion in the award, it has emerged that after detailed and proper appreciation and evaluation of evidence, the learned Labour Court has reached to certain findings of fact and the petitioner has failed to point out, during hearing of this petition, any contrary material from the record which would establish or even suggest that the findings of fact recorded by the learned Labour Court are incorrect or contrary to record or perverse. From the findings of fact recorded by the learned Labour Court in the award, it has emerged that - "(a) the claimant was engaged as and working as daily wager and that he was engaged without following procedure prescribed by rules; (b) the claimant was not a permanent workman of the Nigam and he was working on ad hoc and daily wage; (c) the claimant was arrested in connection with criminal offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC; (d) the claimant was detained in custody for almost 4 months and thereafter he was released on bail; (e) on conclusion of the criminal case, the learned trial Court acquitted the claimant; (f) when the claimant was arrested by police in connection with the offence punishable under Section 302 and he was detained in custody, the claimant was informed vide order dated 24.6.1993 that he cannot be engaged/continued in service in view of his arrest in a criminal case and that, therefore, so long as he is not acquitted, he would not be engaged/continued in service; (g) after the claimant was acquitted from the criminal case, the Nigam passed order dated 20.8.2004 in view of the fact that the project work for which the claimant was engaged, was not available and had come to end while the claimant faced the trial and that in view of the continuous long absence and non-availability of work, his service is not required and therefore, it is discontinued. The Nigam also paid salary in lieu of one month's notice and the Nigam also paid retrenchment compensation to the claimant at the time when his service came to be discontinued; (h) on examination of the evidence available on record, the learned Labour Court reached to the conclusion that the payment of notice pay and retrenchment compensation was complied in accordance with the conditions prescribed under Section 25F and the Nigam did not commit breach of Section 25F or any other statutory provisions and that, therefore, there is no illegality in the action of the Nigam; (i) the learned Labour Court has recorded finding of fact that the claimant had accepted the amount paid by the Nigam, i.e. notice pay and retrenchment compensation." 10. Having noticed above mentioned facts which emerge from the evidence on record and upon being satisfied about the said evidence, the learned Labour Court reached to the conclusion that there was no merit in the allegations made by the claimant and the demand raised by the claimant and consequently, the learned Labour Court dismissed the reference. 11. During hearing of present petition, learned advocate for the petitioner could not show any material from the record which would establish that the findings of fact recorded by the learned Labour Court are contrary to evidence available on record or perverse. 12. Further, as mentioned above, neither the petitioner has mentioned in the petition nor learned advocate for the claimant clarified the factual aspects, until learned advocate for the Nigam emphasized the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court that the Nigam had paid retrenchment compensation and notice pay in accordance with Section 25F of the Act and the claimant had received and accepted the said amount and thereafter raised the dispute. 13. The claimant had accepted the compensation without protest or objection and thereafter raised the dispute. 14. When the petitioner has failed to establish that the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court are unjust or perverse and when the learned Labour Court has found that there is no illegality or infirmity in the action of the Nigam and when it has also emerged from the evidence that the claimant worked with the Nigam on ad hoc, temporary and daily wage basis for some period and that after he was arrested in connection with the criminal offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, the claimant was engaged as daily wager with the Nigam and when the claimant has failed to establish that award suffers from error of law or jurisdiction and/or that the findings of fact are perverse, there is nothing on record to hold that the decision and conclusion by the learned Labour Court are erroneous or unjustified and warrant interference by this Court. 15. The petitioner has failed to establish any infirmity or error in the award. The decision by the learned Labour Court and the impugned award do not suffer from any error of law or jurisdiction, much less any error of fact and there is no ground or reason to disturb the award. Therefore, the petition fails and deserves to be rejected. The petitioner has failed to establish any infirmity or error in the award. The decision by the learned Labour Court and the impugned award do not suffer from any error of law or jurisdiction, much less any error of fact and there is no ground or reason to disturb the award. Therefore, the petition fails and deserves to be rejected. Hence, the petition is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. Petition Dismissed.