JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. When the petition is called-out, learned advocates for the petitioner as well as the respondents are not present. 1.1 This petition is pending since 2007. Therefore, the Court deems it proper to decide the petition on merits. More than 9 years have passed since the petition is pending. Therefore, the Court is not inclined to adjourn the proceedings on the ground that learned advocates are not present. 2. In present petition, the petitioner panchayat has challenged award dated 17.4.2007 passed by learned Labour Court at Surendranagar in Reference (LCS) No. 45 of 2001 whereby the learned Labour Court partly allowed the reference and directed present petitioner panchayat to reinstate the claimants on their original post, however, without backwages. 3. So far as factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record that present respondents i.e. original claimants raised industrial dispute on the ground that the panchayat illegally terminated their services on 1.1.1989, 1.3.1989 and 1.12.1988 respectively. Appropriate government referred the dispute for adjudication to learned Labour Court at Surendranagar. The learned Labour Court registered the dispute as Reference (LCS) No. 45 of 2001. 3.1 In their statement of claim, the claimants alleged that they were working with the panchayat since last 6 years, 8 years and 6 years respectively and they were paid Rs. 14 per day and that during said period, they had worked continuously and regularly with the panchayat. They also alleged that they had worked for 240 days in each year and without fault on their part and without following procedure prescribed by law, the opponent panchayat illegally terminated their services and that therefore, the panchayat should be directed to reinstate them in service with consequential benefits. 3.2 The panchayat opposed the reference and resisted the demand by the claimants. In his written statement, the panchayat claimed that the service of the claimants was not terminated, but they had voluntarily abandoned the service and stopped reporting for work. The panchayat also disputed and denied the allegation that the claimants worked with the panchayat for last 6 years, 8 years and 6 years respectively and that they worked continuously and regularly during that period. The panchayat also contended that the claimants had not worked for 240 days in any year. The panchayat also disputed and denied the allegation that the claimants worked with the panchayat for last 6 years, 8 years and 6 years respectively and that they worked continuously and regularly during that period. The panchayat also contended that the claimants had not worked for 240 days in any year. The panchayat also claimed that actually during their entire tenure, the claimants had not worked for 240 days and they did not work for 240 days in preceding 12 months and that therefore, even otherwise, there was no obligation on the panchayat to comply the provision under the Industrial Disputes Act, more particularly Section 25F, Section 25G or Section 25H of the Act, and the contention that the service was illegally terminated is factually incorrect and baseless. With such submissions, the panchayat opposed the reference and contended that the reference should be rejected. 3.3 After the parties concluded their pleadings, the learned Labour Court received evidence from the contesting parties. Upon completion of evidence of both sides, the learned Labour Court heard submissions by learned advocates for the claimants and the panchayat and after considering material available on record and rival submissions, learned Labour Court passed the impugned award with above mentioned directions. 4. As mentioned above, neither the petitioner nor the respondents nor their learned advocates are present. In this view of the matter, the petition is decided on the basis of material available on record and contentions mentioned in the petition and the reply affidavit. 5. So as to assail the award, the petitioner has reiterated almost same contentions which were raised in the written statement. The petitioner has emphasized inordinate delay on the part of the respondent in raising industrial dispute and has also contended that the claimants had never worked for 240 days in any year and that therefore, any question of breach of Section 25F, Section 25G or Section 25H did not arise. The panchayat has contended that the learned Labour Court has failed to consider relevant facts and evidence available on record. 5.1 At this stage, Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the petitioner, appeared and he submitted that the respondents were engaged intermittently for temporary work on ad-hoc and daily wage basis, i.e. for work of repairs and maintenance, and the allegations by the claimants are incorrect and that they had never worked for 240 days in any year. 5.1 At this stage, Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the petitioner, appeared and he submitted that the respondents were engaged intermittently for temporary work on ad-hoc and daily wage basis, i.e. for work of repairs and maintenance, and the allegations by the claimants are incorrect and that they had never worked for 240 days in any year. He reiterated the fact that the claimants worked sporadically. 6. I have considered the submissions by Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the petitioner, and the observations and findings recorded by the learned Labour Court in the impugned award and the material available on record. 7. Even if all claims, contentions and allegations by the claimant are believed and taken on face value, the fact remains that according to claimants' allegations, their services were terminated in 1988-1989. 7.1 As against the said fact, the claimants, undisputedly, raised dispute in 2001, i.e. after about 12 years. 7.2 In this context, it is relevant to take into account observations in the decision in case of Ajit Narayan Bhanja Deo v. Union of India & Ors., 2002 (1) LLJ 196 as well as observations in the decision in case of State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Ravi Kumar, (2009) 13 SCC 746 . 7.3 When the award is examined in light of objection against maintainability of the reference on the ground of delay, it emerges that the claimants did not offer any explanation with reference to the delay caused in raising industrial dispute. 7.4 Not only the claimants failed to make out sufficient cause, they actually did not even offer any explanation and did not make out any ground to condone inordinate delay of almost 12 years in raising industrial dispute. 7.5 Even if the fact that period of limitation is not prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act is taken into account, then also, the plaintiff/claimant is under obligation to explain reasons and ground for approaching the Court after such inordinate delay. If any justification is not offered, then, the Court would be justified in not granting any relief. On the other hand, order granting relief without being satisfied about justification with regard to inordinate delay caused in raising the dispute, would not be sustainable. If any justification is not offered, then, the Court would be justified in not granting any relief. On the other hand, order granting relief without being satisfied about justification with regard to inordinate delay caused in raising the dispute, would not be sustainable. 7.6 On this count, when the award is examined, it emerges that on one hand, the claimants did not offer any explanation or justification with reference to inordinate delay of 12 years in raising industrial dispute whereas on the other hand, the learned Labour Court failed to address the said issue and to record any conclusion with regard to the said aspect. 7.7 Without application of mind and without being satisfied about the reasons or circumstances, if any, for the inordinate delay caused in raising the dispute, the learned Labour Court mechanically adjudicated the reference and granted relief in favour of the claimants. 7.8 Such award and direction granting relief, cannot be sustained, more particularly because it reflects complete non-application of mind to the relevant aspect by the learned Labour Court. 8. If the award is examined on merits, by putting aside for a while above mentioned aspect related to delay, then, it emerges from the award and from the record that the claimants did not place any material on record to establish that they worked with the panchayat for 6 to 8 years. 8.1 The Court is conscious of the fact that factum of claimants' employment with the panchayat was not in dispute before the learned Labour Court inasmuch as the panchayat itself admitted that over a period of about 6 to 8 years, the claimants worked for about less than 240 days. The said admission on the part of panchayat established factum of employment. 8.2 According to the details placed on record by the panchayat, the claimant Chhaganbhai Valjibhai had worked for 16 days in 1984, 111 days in 1985, 97 days in 1986 and 41 days in 1988 and the claimant Dhirabhai Ranabhai had worked for 31 days in 1985, 125 days in 1986, 20 days in 1987, 31 days in 1988 and the claimant Valjibhai Lakhabhai had worked for 149 days in 1980-1981, 219 days in 1983-1984, 115 days in 1984-1985, 219 days in 1985-1986, 104 days in 1986-1987 and 91 days in 1988-1989. 8.3 On the other hand, the claimants failed to establish that they had worked for 240 days in preceding 12 months or in any year during the said tenure. 8.4 The claimants could not place any material on record to establish that they had worked for 240 days in preceding 12 months. 8.5 Without having regard to the said aspect, the learned Labour Court has recorded that the panchayat has committed breach of Section 25F. 9. In this context, it is relevant to note that the panchayat did not place on record seniority list of the workmen and therefore, it emerged that the panchayat failed to comply the requirement prescribed by Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules. Thus, though breach of Section 25F is not established, it appears that the panchayat committed breach of aforesaid Rule 81. 10. The learned Labour Court has recorded that failure of the panchayat to prepare and display seniority list would tantamount to breach of Rule-81. 10.1 On this count, it is pertinent to note that the claimants failed to mention name of any person, who though junior to them was continued in service when their service was allegedly terminated. 10.2 In this view of the matter, actually, there was no material on record before the learned Labour Court to conclude that the panchayat committed breach of Section 25G. 10.3 It is only an inference or assumption drawn by the learned Labour Court on the premise that the panchayat did not prepare and display seniority list that such inference, in absence of any cogent evidence (which would establish that junior persons were actually continued in service) could not have been drawn mechanically without any supporting or corroborating material available on record. 10.4 It appears that some questions or suggestions were put to the witness of the panchayat during which he was asked to provide the details of daily wagers who were in service with the panchayat at the relevant time, however, the witness of the panchayat failed to provide any details except the fact that about 61 labourers were engaged by the panchayat at the relevant time. The witness failed to provide details of date of joining of the said 61 labourers and that therefore, the learned Labour Court drew inference against the panchayat with reference to the claimant's allegation about breach of Section 25H. 11. The witness failed to provide details of date of joining of the said 61 labourers and that therefore, the learned Labour Court drew inference against the panchayat with reference to the claimant's allegation about breach of Section 25H. 11. Foregoing discussion brings out that the impugned award essentially proceeds on and is based on inferences drawn by learned Labour Court rather than cogent evidence. 11.1 On the other hand, the issue related to inordinate delay caused in raising dispute is ignored by learned Labour Court. 11.2 Since any direction to pay backwages is not passed by the learned Labour Court, it may be contended that the learned Labour Court has balanced equities by denying backwages for entire period and even for the period after the claimants raised the dispute. 12. However, the question about justification with regard to order directing reinstatement also arise in view of the fact that by the time the claimants raised dispute, 12 years had already passed and by the time, the learned Labour Court passed the award, more than 25 years had rolled by and that therefore, the learned Labour Court ought to have considered awarding lump sum compensation instead of reinstatement. 13. The direction to the panchayat to reinstate the claimants whose service was discontinued before about 25 years does not appear justified even if it is assumed that the findings and conclusions recorded by the learned Labour Court are justified and supported by cogent evidence. 14. Having regard to above discussion and for the reasons mentioned above, more particularly the fact that the panchayat committed breach of Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules and the fact that the panchayat failed to establish its case that the claimants had voluntarily stopped reporting for work or voluntarily abandoned the service, it appears that if the panchayat is directed to pay reasonable lump sum compensation instead of direction to reinstate the claimants, then, it would serve interest of justice and equities will be balanced. 15. Therefore, following order is passed:- "[a] The impugned award is partly set aside and partly modified. [b] The conclusion denying backwages is hereby confirmed. [c] The order directing the panchayat to reinstate the original claimants is set aside and modified/substituted by order directing panchayat to pay Rs. 15,000/- as lump sum compensation to each of the claimants." With aforesaid modification in the award, the petition is partly allowed. [b] The conclusion denying backwages is hereby confirmed. [c] The order directing the panchayat to reinstate the original claimants is set aside and modified/substituted by order directing panchayat to pay Rs. 15,000/- as lump sum compensation to each of the claimants." With aforesaid modification in the award, the petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Petition Partly Allowed.