JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Rana, learned advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the respondent. 2. In present petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that:- "10(a) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the order/award given by the Labour Court Rajkot in IT REF (LCR) No. 300/93 dated 27-6-07." 2.1 By the award impugned in present petition, the learned Labour Court has directed the petitioner to reinstate the original claimant with continuity of service and 40% backwages. 3. So far as factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record that, somewhere in 1993, present petitioner raised industrial dispute against the action of opponent employer terminating his service w.e.f. 12.1.1986. Appropriate government referred the dispute for adjudication to learned Labour Court at Rajkot. 3.1 In his statement of claim, the claimant alleged that he joined service with the opponent employer w.e.f. 1.4.1985 on daily wage basis as Driver at salary of Rs. 29 per day. He also alleged that opponent employer terminated his service on 12.1.1986 without following procedure prescribed by law. He alleged that he served demand notice in March-1992 with demand that he should be reinstated in service, however, the opponent employer - electricity board did not reinstate him and therefore, he raised industrial dispute. With said allegations, the claimant demanded reinstatement with back wages. 3.2 The electricity board opposed the reference. In its written statement, the electricity board claimed that the claimant was engaged as driver on daily wage basis for temporary period. It was also claimed that according to the policy of the electricity board, recruitment is made from amongst the persons whose names obtain in the list of apprentice whereas the claimant was never engaged as apprentice and he never worked with the electricity board as apprentice and that therefore, question of regular appointment for the claimant never arose. It was contended that the claimant was never appointed as regular or permanent employee and that he worked for casual work on temporary basis and for limited/fixed period and when need to engage the claimant expired, he was relieved from service. With such submissions, the reference was opposed. It was contended that the claimant was never appointed as regular or permanent employee and that he worked for casual work on temporary basis and for limited/fixed period and when need to engage the claimant expired, he was relieved from service. With such submissions, the reference was opposed. 3.3 When the parties concluded the pleadings, the learned Labour Court received evidence from both sides and upon conclusion of evidence by the contesting parties, learned Labour Court heard submissions and after considering material available on record as well as rival submissions, learned Labour Court passed the impugned award. 4. Mr. Rana, learned advocate for the petitioner electricity board, contended that the claimant was engaged for limited/fixed period with specific intimation that he is engaged only for temporary period and that therefore, his appointment as well as termination are covered by provision under clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act. He further submitted that the claimant had not worked for 240 days in preceding 12 months and that therefore, provision under Section 25F would not be applicable and consequently, the allegation that the electricity board had committed breach of Section 25F should not have been accepted and entertained by the learned Labour Court. He further submitted that the claimant had worked for less than 12 months and that he had not worked for 240 days in preceding 12 months and therefore also, the board's action of discontinuing the service of the claimant could not have been termed as violation of Section 25F of the Act. Actually, the claimant was not entitled for payment of compensation or notice pay in view of the fact that he had not worked for 12 months or 240 days. 4.1 Besides the said contention, Mr. Rana, learned advocate for the petitioner board, assailed the impugned award on the ground that the claimant had raised dispute after almost 7 years and that therefore, the learned Labour Court should not have entertained the reference. He submitted that in light of the facts of the case, direction to reinstate the claimant and direction granting continuity of service and 40% backwages are unjustified and arbitrary. According to learned advocate for the petitioner board, the award should be set aside. 5. Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the respondent, opposed the petition. He submitted that in light of the facts of the case, direction to reinstate the claimant and direction granting continuity of service and 40% backwages are unjustified and arbitrary. According to learned advocate for the petitioner board, the award should be set aside. 5. Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the respondent, opposed the petition. He reiterated the contentions raised by the claimant before the learned Labour Court and he submitted that the learned Labour Court has not committed any error in directing the board to reinstate the claimant. He also submitted that since the board illegally terminated service of the claimant, it cannot be claimed or contended that the direction granting continuity of service and/or direction granting 40% backwages are unjustified or arbitrary. 6. I have considered rival submissions and I have also considered material available on record. I have also considered the award impugned in present petition. 7. According to the case of the claimant before the learned Labour Court, he joined the service with the electricity board on daily wage basis as driver w.e.f. 1.4.1985. 7.1 According to his allegations, the electricity board, illegally and arbitrarily, terminated his service on 12.1.1986. Thus, according to the claimant's own case, he worked with the petitioner board on daily wage basis from 1.4.1985 to 12.1.1986, i.e. for about 9 months. 7.2 Thus, the claimant did not work with the petitioner board for 12 months. 7.3 According to the provision under Section 25F of the Act, the workman, who is employed "for not less than one year and during that period, he has been in continuous service, cannot be terminated without following procedure prescribed by Section 25F. In present case, by his own admission, the claimant had admitted that he had not worked for 1 year and he was employed only for 9 months. 7.4 The obligation to establish that he had worked for 240 days in preceding 12 months was on the claimant. 7.5 In present case, the claimant did not place any material on record to establish that during period of 9 months, when he was employed by the petitioner board, he had worked for 240 days. 8. Besides the said fact, in present case, more important and relevant factor is that, the claimant raised industrial dispute after almost 7 years. According to his own claim, his service was terminated on 12.1.1986 whereas the claimant raised dispute/demand in 1992. 8. Besides the said fact, in present case, more important and relevant factor is that, the claimant raised industrial dispute after almost 7 years. According to his own claim, his service was terminated on 12.1.1986 whereas the claimant raised dispute/demand in 1992. The delay caused in raising industrial dispute establishes the fact that after the cause of action arose, the claimant had abandoned the cause and he allowed the dispute/claim to die. In the result, with passage of time, the claim was rendered stale claim and it was not "live dispute" when the claimant sought to raise industrial dispute, as an afterthought. 9. Before proceeding further, it is necessary and appropriate to note that Mr. Rana, learned advocate for the petitioner board, submitted that despite the fact that the claimant was engaged for casual work on ad-hoc and daily wage basis for limited and fixed period and for temporary duration and that he had worked only for about 9 months on daily wage basis and had not worked for 240 days and despite the fact that the claimant was engaged without following the procedure prescribed for selection and recruitment and in view of the fact that according to the rules and settlement with the recognized union, the board can make regular appointment from the list of apprentice, as a result of which the claimant could not have been appointed, the board is ready to pay reasonable amount (Rs. 15,000/-) as lump sum compensation. 10. In light of the fact that the service of the claimant was terminated in January 1986, the fact remains that almost 30 years have passed since the service of the claimant came to be discontinued. 11. 15,000/-) as lump sum compensation. 10. In light of the fact that the service of the claimant was terminated in January 1986, the fact remains that almost 30 years have passed since the service of the claimant came to be discontinued. 11. In this view of the matter, even if the observation by learned Labour Court that the service was terminated without following procedure prescribed under Section 25F are to be accepted, then also, in light of the fact that:- "[a] the claimant was engaged for casual work on ad-hoc and daily wage basis for temporary period and for limited/fixed duration; and [b] he was engaged without following procedure for selection and recruitment; and [c] the claimant, by his own admission, worked only for 9 months with the petitioner electricity board; and [d] the claimant raised industrial dispute after delay of about 6 years; and [e] almost 30 years have passed since service of the claimant came to be terminated;" this Court is of the view that direction by learned Labour Court granting reinstatement and also granting continuity of service and 40% backwages are not sustainable. 12. The learned Labour Court appears to have lost sight of the fact and disregarded vital position that total tenure of claimant's service with the petitioner board was only of 9 months and that he raised dispute after 6 years and his appointment, from initial stage, was irregular and was not made in accordance with prescribed procedure for selection and recruitment, benefit of continuity of service of almost 30 years could not and ought not have been granted. Likewise, learned Labour Court has also failed to record any reasons for awarding 40% backwages while passing direction with regard to continuity of service and backwages, the learned Labour Court has ignored above mentioned facts. 13. Besides this, the claimant himself admitted before the learned Labour Court that he has source of income and at the relevant time, he earned about Rs. 500 per month. In backdrop of such facts and circumstances of the case, neither the direction granting backwages nor the direction granting continuity of service are justified and sustainable. 14. Further, in view of above discussed facts, order directing the electricity board to reinstate the claimant is also not justified. 500 per month. In backdrop of such facts and circumstances of the case, neither the direction granting backwages nor the direction granting continuity of service are justified and sustainable. 14. Further, in view of above discussed facts, order directing the electricity board to reinstate the claimant is also not justified. In present case, the fact remains that the claimant was not employed for one year (12 months) and that he raised dispute after 7 years. Therefore, it appears that if in present case, lump sum compensation is awarded to the claimant and award impugned is accordingly set aside and modified, then, it would meet the ends of justice and balance the equities. 15. Therefore, following order is passed:- "[a] The impugned award is partly set aside and partly modified. [b] The direction to reinstate original claimant, i.e. present respondent, is set aside and modified and instead, the petitioner board is directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- by way of lump sum compensation. [c] The order directing continuity of service and 40% backwages deserves to be set aside. In view of the fact that order directing reinstatement is set aside and modified, the order granting continuity of service would not survive. The said direction stands set aside. Likewise, the order granting 40% backwages is also set aside." The award impugned in present petition is accordingly modified. Present petition is, consequently, partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.