JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Chauhan for learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw on behalf of the petitioner. None present for respondent. 2. In this petition, petitioner - corporation has challenged award dated 26th September, 2008, passed by the Labour Court at Bhavnagar in Reference (LCB) No. 272 of 1988, whereby Labour Court directed the petitioner - Corporation to reinstate the respondent on his original post with 20% back wages. 3. So far as factual details are concerned, it has emerged from the record that respondent herein i.e. original claimant, in the Labour Court raised industrial dispute with the allegation that opponent - corporation terminated his service illegally and arbitrarily and in violation of statutory provision and principles of natural justice with such allegations he demanded that corporation should reinstate him with all benefits. 3.1 Appropriate government referred the dispute for adjudication to Labour Court, Bhavnagar and court has registered the dispute as Reference (LCB) No. 272 of 1988. 3.2 In his statement of claim, the claimant alleged that he worked with opponent corporation as field worker from 1st June, 1974 and that corporation illegally terminated his service vide order dated 16th March, 1985. He alleged that corporation violated principle of natural justice and also committed breach of statutory provision of Industrial Disputes Act. He alleged that corporation did not pay retrenchment compensation and terminated his service without notice or notice pay. The claimant stated that in view of breach of statutory provision, corporation should be directed to reinstate him in service with consequential benefits. 3.3 The opponent corporation opposed the reference. In its written statement, the corporation contended that the claimant worked with the corporation on casual, ad-hoc and daily-wage basis and he was engaged without following any procedure and that therefore, the corporation was not obliged to issue notice or to pay salary in lieu of notice and or to pay retrenchment compensation. In the same breath, the corporation also contended that the relationship of employee and employer did not exist between the claimant and the corporation. The opponent corporation denied allegations made in the statement of claim by the claimant. In its reply, the corporation also stated that the claimant was engaged for work of spraying DDT for fumigation for controlling malaria and for that purpose, he was engaged on ad-hoc daily-wage basis for temporary and fixed period. The opponent corporation denied allegations made in the statement of claim by the claimant. In its reply, the corporation also stated that the claimant was engaged for work of spraying DDT for fumigation for controlling malaria and for that purpose, he was engaged on ad-hoc daily-wage basis for temporary and fixed period. The corporation also contended that the claimant was engaged during the period between 1.6.1985 to 5.11.1985 and 15.6.1987 to 31.10.1987, whereas in the same written statement, the corporation also contended that the claimant was engaged on account of need basis in class IV post category on daily-wage basis and he worked during the period from 1.3.1982 to 15.3.1985. The corporation also contended that since there was no need for the claimant, his service was discontinued w.e.f. 16.3.1985. 3.4 After contesting parties concluded pleadings, learned Labour Court has received and recorded facts of both sides. After the parties closed their evidence, learned Labour Court considered the material which was available on record, and passed award which is impugned in the present petition. 4. Mr. Munshaw assailed the award and submitted that the learned Labour Court failed to appreciate that claimant was engaged without following prescribed procedure for fixed period and that he was engaged for casual work on ad-hoc and temporary period and on daily-wage basis and that therefore, he has no right to continue in employment and corporation is not obliged to comply the condition prescribed under Section 25(F) of the Act or other provision. He submitted that since the work was not available the claimant was not engaged. The learned Labour Court failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of present case and committed error in holding that the Panchayat committed breach of Section 25(F) of the Act. He further submitted that the learned Labour Court committed error in directing the Panchayat to reinstate the workman with 20% back wages. By way of alternate submission, he submitted that if the court finds that there is an error in the award then the direction to be given to Panchayat to pay lump-sum compensation instead of direction to reinstate the claimant. He submitted that more than 25 years have passed since the claimant was discontinued and that thereafter direction to reinstate the claimant is not justified. 5. As mentioned earlier, no one has appeared for the respondent. Respondent himself has also not cared to defend his case. He submitted that more than 25 years have passed since the claimant was discontinued and that thereafter direction to reinstate the claimant is not justified. 5. As mentioned earlier, no one has appeared for the respondent. Respondent himself has also not cared to defend his case. Even at the stage of notice, no one entered appearance and after petition came to be admitted learned advocate for the respondent entered appearance, however, subsequently no one pursued the matter and at the time of final hearing the respondent is not represented. 6. According to the claimant, he joined service with the Panchayat in 1974. If the said claim and allegation of the claimant is accepted, then the claimant would have reached age of superannuation in 2014. 7. Under the circumstances the aspect which deserves to be mentioned and which is to be kept in focus is that, the claimant raised dispute about three years after the cause of action arose in as much as the claimant alleged that he was discontinued from service in March, 1985 and claimant raised dispute in 1988 (i.e. after 3 years). 8. Another relevant aspect which also deserves to be noticed at the outset is that the Panchayat has placed on record a statement of claimant's attendance and the amount paid to the claimant during the period between April, 1982 to February, 1985. From the said statement, it has emerged that from March 1982 to February, 1983, the claimant worked for 280 days and from March, 1983 to February, 1984, he worked for 275 days, in March, 1984 to February, 1985 claimant worked for 263 days. Thereafter, during the period from March, 1984 to February, 1985, the claimant worked for 263 days. Meaning thereby, if the claimant's attendance, during preceding 12 months, would be more than 240 days. Thus if the attendance of the claimant is considered from any perspective and particularly for last 12 months, then it comes out that the claimant had worked for 240 days during relevant period. 9. Other relevant aspect which has emerged from the statement placed by the Panchayat on record is that the claimant was engaged continuously from April, 1982 to February, 1985 i.e. almost three years. 9. Other relevant aspect which has emerged from the statement placed by the Panchayat on record is that the claimant was engaged continuously from April, 1982 to February, 1985 i.e. almost three years. 9.1 The said details mentioned in the statement give out that the claimant worked continuously during each month between April, 1982 to February, 1985 and in each month he worked on an average for more than 21 days. 9.2 Therefore, the allegations against the claimant by the Panchayat that the claimant was engaged on temporary and ad-hoc basis are not true and it is established that the said claim of the Panchayat is incorrect. 10. In this view of the matter, it has emerged that the claimant has complied both the conditions for attracting Section 25(F) in his case i.e. he worked for more than 12 months with the Panchayat and he worked not less than for 240 days in preceding 12 months. Therefore, the Panchayat was under statutory obligation, to comply the prescribed procedure under Section 25(F) of the Act and Rule 81 of the regulation under the Act. 11. It is undisputed position that the Panchayat terminated the service of the claimant in March, 1985, without following prescribed procedure either by section 25(F) or by Rule 81. 11.1 Therefore, the findings recorded by learned Labour Court to the effect that the Panchayat committed breach of statutory provision when it discontinued service of claimant, cannot be faulted and breach of Section 25(F) and Rule 81 is established. 11.2 In this view of the matter, there is no justification to dispute the final conclusion of learned Labour Court and the findings recorded by learned Labour Court cannot be termed arbitrary or perverse. 11.3 The petitioner has failed to make out any case against the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court. 12. Once it is established that the Panchayat has committed breach of section 25(F) of the Act, the only question which would survive is with regard to appropriate relief. After holding that Panchayat terminated service of the claimant without complying prescribed procedure under Section 25(F), the learned Labour Court in present case considered it proper to direct the Panchayat to reinstate the claimant with 20% back wages. 13. The said direction ordinarily cannot be termed unjustified or arbitrary. However, certain relevant factual aspects appear to have been overlooked by the learned Labour Court. 14. 13. The said direction ordinarily cannot be termed unjustified or arbitrary. However, certain relevant factual aspects appear to have been overlooked by the learned Labour Court. 14. As mentioned earlier, claimant joined service with Panchayat in 1974. Even if it is presumed that when the claimant joined service with the Panchayat, he was at minimum eligible age i.e. 18 years of age then also the claimant would have reached near the age of superannuation (i.e. 52 years of age) at the time when the learned Labour Court passed the award. Similarly, it was also required to be taken into account that between the date of termination and the date when award came to be passed, more then 21 years had rolled by. Further, the claimant raised industrial dispute after three years i.e. three years after his service was terminated. 15. It would be also relevant to take into consideration the fact that the claimant was engaged without following procedure prescribed by rules. He was working on daily-wage basis and was not permanent employee selected after following regular procedure. The claimant also failed to establish that he was engaged on clear vacancy in respect of a permanent post on sanctioned set-up. Above mentioned aspects are relevant factors which should have been taken into account while determining the issue with regard to final direction. The decision as to whether employer should be directed to reinstate the claimant or that the relief should be moulded and lump-sum compensation should be awarded, deserved to be considered by the learned Labour Court at the time of passing final direction. In present case, it appears that the learned Labour Court did not take into account the relevant factors while deciding the issue as to what relief should be granted. This is first reason on account of which the impugned direction deserves to be set aside. There is another reason which has convinced this court to modify the direction with regard to final relief viz. the fact that the claimant worked with the Panchayat from January, 1974. Thus the claimant would have, undisputedly, crossed the age of superannuation at least in 2014. Since the claimant is not present before the court and the learned advocate for the respondent is not present, it is not possible to determine the claims etc. at this stage. the fact that the claimant worked with the Panchayat from January, 1974. Thus the claimant would have, undisputedly, crossed the age of superannuation at least in 2014. Since the claimant is not present before the court and the learned advocate for the respondent is not present, it is not possible to determine the claims etc. at this stage. However, on the basis of the fact declared by the claimant in the statement of claim, the claimant appears to have crossed the age of superannuation. Therefore, at this stage actual reinstatement of the claimant in the service with Panchayat is otherwise also not to be possible. It is in this backdrop that appropriate alternate relief has to be decided. According to petitioner Panchayat, the claimant joined the service in 1982. The claimant alleged that he worked with the Panchayat since 1974. The learned Labour Court has directed that the claimant should be reinstated with all consequential benefits. Under the circumstances, the claimant would be entitled for benefits of gratuity, leave encasement etc. Having regard to all such aspects and the circumstances discussed herein above, it appears that if the Panchayat is directed to pay Rs. 1.25 Lacks towards lump-sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the claimant which would include payment of gratuity, leave salary etc. then equity would be balanced. 16. Therefore, following order passed: "(a) The findings recorded by the learned Labour Court are not disturbed. (b) Having regard to the facts and circumstances discussed above, the court is of the view that it would be appropriate to mould the relief and award lump-sum compensation instead of actual reinstatement. (c) Therefore, final direction by the learned Labour Court is partly set aside and modified and the petitioner Panchayat is directed to pay Rs. 1.25 Lacks as lump-sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and all consequential benefits for which, the claimant would be entitled at the age of superannuation. (d) The Panchayat is directed to make payment to the claimant as expeditiously as possible and preferably within 8 weeks from the receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid clarification and direction, petition is partly allowed and impugned award is partly set aside and modified as aforesaid order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No costs."