JUDGMENT & ORDER : K M Thaker, J. Heard Mr. Krutik Parikh, learned AGP for the petitioner and Mr. Pandya, learned advocate for the respondents. 1.1 Having regard to the facts of the case, Rule. Returnable forthwith. Mr. Pandya, learned advocate has waived service of process of Rule on behalf of the respondents and with his consent the petitions are taken up for final hearing and final order today. 2. Identical relief is prayed for in captioned petitions. Though separate but almost similar awards are challenged in this group of petitions on identical grounds. Even the facts involved in the reference cases are almost similar except some changes with regard to the date when the concerned claimants joined service, total length of service and date of termination. One of the major differences so far as relevant facts are concerned, in the reference cases, is with regard to the total length of service or total number of days for which the claimants rendered service. The said factual contention is common in all petitions. Learned advocates have also put forward common submissions for their respective claimants in captioned petitions. Therefore captioned petitions are decided by this common judgment. 3. So far as factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record that in captioned petitions the petitioner Executive Engineer has challenged awards passed by learned Labour Court at Nadiad dated 26.2.2014 in Reference No. 303 of 2001 and in Reference No. 32 of 2000 and in Reference No. 21 of 2000 and in Reference No. 106 of 2005 and in Reference No. 163 of 2000 and in Reference No. 236 of 2000 and in Reference No. 18 of 2000. 3.1 Learned Labour Court by almost identical awards directed present petitioner to reinstate the claimants with 20% backwages. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said award and directions. 3.2 The claimants concerned in above mentioned reference cases raised industrial dispute with the allegation that the opponent Executive Engineer Sub-division Nadiad illegally terminated their services. Appropriate Government referred the dispute for adjudication to learned Labour Court at Nadiad. Learned Labour Court registered the dispute as Reference No. 303 of 2001, Reference No. 32 of 2000, Reference No. 21 of 2000, Reference No. 106 of 2005, Reference No. 163 of 2000, Reference No. 236 of 2000, Reference No. 18 of 2000. 3.3 The concerned claimants filed their respective statements of claim. Learned Labour Court registered the dispute as Reference No. 303 of 2001, Reference No. 32 of 2000, Reference No. 21 of 2000, Reference No. 106 of 2005, Reference No. 163 of 2000, Reference No. 236 of 2000, Reference No. 18 of 2000. 3.3 The concerned claimants filed their respective statements of claim. The claimant in Reference Case No.32 of 2000 alleged that he joined service with the office of the opponent Executive Engineer in 1984-85 and opponent Executive Engineer illegally terminated his service w.e.f. 1.8.1999 whereas the claimant in Reference Case No.21 of 2000 alleged that he joined service with the office of the opponent Executive Engineer in 1983 and opponent Executive Engineer illegally terminated his service w.e.f. July 1999, the claimant in Reference Case No.106 of 2000 alleged that he joined service with the office of the opponent Executive Engineer in 1985 and opponent Executive Engineer illegally terminated his service w.e.f. 30.10.2001, the claimant in Reference Case No.163 of 2000 alleged that he joined service with the office of the opponent Executive Engineer in 1980 and opponent Executive Engineer illegally terminated his service w.e.f. 1993, the claimant in Reference Case No.236 of 2000 alleged that he joined service with the office of the opponent Executive Engineer in 1980 and opponent Executive Engineer illegally terminated his service w.e.f. 1999, the claimant in Reference Case No.18 of 2000 alleged that he joined service with the office of the opponent Executive Engineer in 1976 and opponent Executive Engineer illegally terminated his service w.e.f. 1994, the claimant in Reference Case No.303 of 2001 alleged that he joined service with the office of the opponent Executive Engineer in 1970 and opponent Executive Engineer illegally terminated his service w.e.f. 1997. 3.4 The concerned claimants alleged that from the date when they joined service with the opponent employer they worked regularly and continuously until their service came to be illegally terminated by oral instructions. They also alleged that they had worked for 240 days. They admitted that they were engaged and they worked as daily wager, however, they also alleged that employer did not provide any document e.g. identity card, attendance card, wage slip etc. They also alleged that they had worked for 240 days. They admitted that they were engaged and they worked as daily wager, however, they also alleged that employer did not provide any document e.g. identity card, attendance card, wage slip etc. All claimants mentioned that certain other claimants who are similarly placed and were working with them under same Executive Engineer had raised industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication in reference case No. 28 of 1986 and that the learned labour Court passed award in the said reference case, in March 2006. The claimants in present reference cases relied on the said award. They alleged that their service came to be terminated by oral instruction and without following procedure prescribed by law and in breach of statutory provision and also in breach of principles of natural justice. 3.5 The petitioner herein i.e. original opponent opposed the reference cases by filing written statement. However, before present petitioner filed their written statement, the claimants sought permission to amend the statement of claims which was granted by the Court and actually, the claimants had amended the statement of claim and thereafter, the opponent - present petitioner had tendered its reply in response to the statement of claims filed by the claimants. The original opponent claimed in its written statement that the claimants were engaged only on ad-hoc and temporary basis for casual work and that their engagement was on temporary basis. The opponent also claimed that the claimants were engaged without following any procedure for selection and recruitment and that their names were not sponsored by Employment Exchange. It was also claimed that the claimants were engaged intermittently and the claimants had, after sometime, voluntarily stopped reporting for work. The opponent also claimed that it had made the payment for the days for which the claimants had worked and the claimants were, on their own volition, not reporting for duty. 3.6 After parties completed their pleadings learned Labour Court received documentary and oral evidence from both sides. 3.7 It is claimed and clarified by learned advocate for the claimants that for the purpose of evidence and for considering rival arguments the reference cases were consolidated and common proceedings were conducted in respect of all reference cases. 3.6 After parties completed their pleadings learned Labour Court received documentary and oral evidence from both sides. 3.7 It is claimed and clarified by learned advocate for the claimants that for the purpose of evidence and for considering rival arguments the reference cases were consolidated and common proceedings were conducted in respect of all reference cases. Learned advocate for the claimants also clarified that each claimant had filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination however in light of joint request by both sides cross examination of only one claimant i.e. Mr. Kantibhai was conducted from the side of opponent and said cross examination of the said one claimant was treated as cross examination of all claimants in reference cases. 3.8 Common arguments for all cases were put forward before learned labour Court by claimants and the opponent employer also followed same procedure. In respect of all reference cases the opponent submitted one document (statement) which reflected, according to the opponent, the details of the attendance (days for which the claimants worked/engaged under the office of Executive Engineer). The said statement was taken on record by the learned Labour Court at Exhibit 29. 3.9 Upon conclusion of the evidence by both sides learned Labour Court heard rival submissions. Thereafter, learned labour Court considered the material available on record and reached to the conclusion that the service of the claimants were terminated illegally and in breach of statutory provisions. 3.10 Having reached said conclusion learned Labour Court passed separate but identical awards with above mentioned directions. The findings and reasons recorded in all awards are almost similar. 4. Mr. Krutik Parikh, learned AGP assailed impugned award and submitted that in most cases, the claimants raised industrial dispute after inordinate delay of more than 5 years. According to learned AGP such industrial dispute and reference should not have been entertained and should have been dismissed on ground of delay and laches. Learned AGP submitted that the claimants were engaged irregularly without following any procedure prescribed by rules and that therefore they have no right to claim that they should be continued in service. According to learned AGP such industrial dispute and reference should not have been entertained and should have been dismissed on ground of delay and laches. Learned AGP submitted that the claimants were engaged irregularly without following any procedure prescribed by rules and that therefore they have no right to claim that they should be continued in service. Learned AGP contended that the claimants were engaged intermittently and not regularly or continuously and that they are engaged on exigency of work and need for additional workers, depending on the availability of work and that therefore the allegation that the claimants were engaged regularly and they worked continuously is incorrect. He also alleged that some of the claimants have never worked with the office of the executive engineer and their names and/or attendance do not obtain on record of the office of executive engineer. Learned AGP also relied on the statement reflecting details of attendance of the claimants i.e. the days when the claimants were engaged and they worked with the opponent. The said statement was placed on record by the office of executive engineer and it was taken on record at Exh. 29. He submitted that learned Labour Court arbitrarily did not rely on the said documents and discarded the said evidence. Learned AGP submitted that the statement reflected that any claimant had not worked for 240 days in any year and that therefore, the allegation that the claimants had worked for 240 days and Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter refereed to as the "I.D. Act") was applicable are unjustified and incorrect and the opponent did not commit breach of any statutory provision and therefore the reference should have been rejected. 5. Mr. Pandya, learned advocate for the respondent opposed the submissions by learned AGP. Mr. Pandya, learned advocate for the respondents submitted that the claimants rendered service for more than 5 years, and in some cases for 10 or more years and that the claimants worked regularly and continuously however, the claimants could not place any document on record to demonstrate their employment and/or length of service and number of days for which they had worked because the opponent employer never provided any document viz. identity card, attendance card, pay slip etc. Mr. identity card, attendance card, pay slip etc. Mr. Pandya, learned advocate submitted that the claimants demanded production of documents however opponent employer did not place on record the said document and instead the opponent placed on record so-called alleged summary of attendance of all claimants. He submitted that at the relevant time along with reference cases against which the captioned petitions are filed several other reference cases were also being prosecuted before learned Labour Court and that therefore the statement prepared by the opponent contained the details of various other similarly placed persons (who were concerned in other reference cases, which are not subject matter of present petitions). He submitted that the opponent employer did not disclose the source or the basis of the statement was prepared and the original documents, if any, on the basis of which the said statement was prepared, were not placed before learned Labour Court. He submitted that the opponent also did not place on record attendance register and wage register. Learned advocate for the claimants submitted that it was established before learned Labour Court that the claimants had worked for more than 12 months and that they had worked for more than 240 days and rendered continuous service contemplated under Section 25F of I.D. Act and that therefore opponent was obliged to comply the procedure prescribed by Section 25F of the I.D. Act before terminating their service. It is also claimed by learned advocate for the claimant that the service of the claimants were terminated without following any procedure and that therefore the award is correct and justified and there is no justification to set aside the award. Learned advocate for the respondent submitted that the petitions may be dismissed. 6. I have considered rival submissions and material available on record. I have also considered impugned award and observation and reasons recorded by the learned Labour Court. 7. From the material on record and from discussion in the impugned award it has emerged that claimants concerned in above mentioned reference cases came to be appointed/engaged by present petitioner. Of course in respect of some of the claimants the petitioner has claimed that they had never worked with present petitioner. It has emerged from the record that the claimants who raised industrial dispute have failed to place any document on record to establish their appointments and their services with the opponent. Of course in respect of some of the claimants the petitioner has claimed that they had never worked with present petitioner. It has emerged from the record that the claimants who raised industrial dispute have failed to place any document on record to establish their appointments and their services with the opponent. 7.1 However, they simultaneously also alleged and claimed that while they working with the opponent, the opponent never provided any document and that therefore they were unable to place any material on record. 7.2 It is also necessary to note that the witness of the opponent (present petitioner) did not dispute the allegation, rather, the fact that it did not provide document viz. attendance card, wage slip, identity card to any daily wager. 7.3 It is also not in dispute that the claimants demanded production of documents viz. attendance register and/or wage register however, the employer (i.e. present petitioner) failed to place the said documents/registers on record. 7.4 It is also necessary to mention that instead of placing on record before learned Labour Court the attendance register and/or wage register, the petitioner herein submitted and placed on record a statement (exh.29) which allegedly reflected total number of attendance i.e. number of days when the claimants had engaged and had worked with the opponents. The said statement contained names of 33 claimants whose cases were at the relevant time, pending before learned labour Court at Nadiad. Present 7 claimants are amongst said 33 claimants who had raised industrial dispute (except one Mr. Natubhai K Chavda whose name is not reflected in the statement though the dispute raised by said Mr. N.K. Chavda was also pending before learned Labour Court at Nadiad at the relevant time). 8. Since the petitioner has heavily relied on the said document (exh. 29) and has assailed the awards on the ground that learned Labour Court committed error in not relying on or by discarding the said document (exh. 29) it would be appropriate to deal with the said document at this stage. 8.1 According to learned AGP the said statement reflected attendance of the claimants who were engaged on daily wage basis by the petitioner (opponent before learned Labour Court) and had raised industrial dispute. As mentioned above, though the dispute (reference) was also raised by above named Mr. 8.1 According to learned AGP the said statement reflected attendance of the claimants who were engaged on daily wage basis by the petitioner (opponent before learned Labour Court) and had raised industrial dispute. As mentioned above, though the dispute (reference) was also raised by above named Mr. Natubhai K Chavda the said statement did not include the name of said Natubhai K Chavda in the reference cases filed by him. 8.2 This is an instance to demonstrate that the list is defective. 8.3 Another aspect which emerges from the record is that out of 7 claimants concerned in present proceedings, the said list reflected attendance of only one claimant viz. Bhimabhai Maganbhai Chauhan (reference No. 303 of 2001) and in respect of other 5 claimants the statement reflects "nil" attendance and name of one claimant is not at all mentioned in the said statement. 8.4 Now another aspect related to said statement deserves consideration. 8.5 The said summary/statement at the most can be considered secondary evidence and should not be mechanically relied on unless primary/principal document (in original) is produced/shown and the contents of such secondary evidence are proved in accordance with law. 8.6 Learned AGP would contend that the said statement was prepared on the basis of attendance register or wage register. 8.7 The said documents i.e. original attendance register or original wage register for entire period or even for one year were not placed on record before learned labour Court, even for purpose of verification of the details mentioned in statement. 8.8 More important is the fact that the author of the document (i.e. person who prepared statement) was not examined. The witness of the petitioner did not depose anything with regard to the said statements, particularly about its contents and authenticity thereof. He did not prepare the statement. He did not verify its contents and he did not cross-check it with the original record. So for as the document is concerned he was a witness with no probative and evidentiary value. The said statement, thus, was not proved in accordance with law. Merely by placing a paper (statement) on record it cannot be treated as and cannot be given status of and it does not become "evidence". In this view of the matter the learned trial Court is right and justified in discarding said statement and not relying on said statement. The said statement, thus, was not proved in accordance with law. Merely by placing a paper (statement) on record it cannot be treated as and cannot be given status of and it does not become "evidence". In this view of the matter the learned trial Court is right and justified in discarding said statement and not relying on said statement. The singular and direct consequence of this situation is that despite the demand for relevant documents the petitioner did not place relevant documents on record and that therefore learned Court was left with no alternative but to accept workman's oral evidence about their attendance, more particularly in absence of any cogent and satisfactory "evidence" by the petitioner to oppose and contradict oral evidence (about total attendance of workmen). This was necessary because it is an undisputed position, in present case, that the employer did not supply any document to the workmen (related to his service-employment) e.g. identity card, attendance card, wage slip etc. Due to such practice adopted by the employer said workman was helpless and unable to place any evidence on record. 8.9 Opponent examined one Mr. Kanubhai as their witness. During his deposition he did not assert that the said statement was prepared by him and/or that the said statement was prepared on the basis of attendance register or wage register in his presence and that he had examined/verified attendance register or wage register and verified the details mentioned in the statement. 8.10 The said witness admitted that the appointment orders were not issued and wage slip, attendance card, identity card etc. and such other documents were not provided to the workman. The said witness also admitted that the claimants were engaged under oral order and their services were discontinued by oral instruction. 8.11 Thus, the said piece of secondary evidence i.e. the contents of the said documents were not proved by the opponent. 8.12 It was not case of the opponent employer i.e. present petitioner that all original documents are destroyed and/or not available. Despite this position the employer did not place on record the original documents. 8.11 Thus, the said piece of secondary evidence i.e. the contents of the said documents were not proved by the opponent. 8.12 It was not case of the opponent employer i.e. present petitioner that all original documents are destroyed and/or not available. Despite this position the employer did not place on record the original documents. 8.13 Actually when the learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the said statement was prepared on the basis of attendance register or wage register, then the said submission by learned AGP would mean/imply that the said documents were available with the petitioner however, the petitioner consciously kept back the said documents from the Court and did not place original documents on record and that therefore it was not possible for the claimants and even for the Court to compare and verify the details mentioned in the statement and to decide whether the said details were accurate and correct. 9. In absence of primary/principal evidence the secondary evidence could not be relied on when any witness was not examined to prove the contents of said secondary evidence and original documents (registers) were not placed for verification. 9.1 In this view of the matter, learned Labour Court considered it appropriate to discard the said documents to not rely on the said statement, more particularly because without claiming that the documents i.e. attendance register or wage register are destroyed or not available the original material was not placed on record by the employer, despite specific demand by the claimants. The said decision cannot be faulted. 10. In this context, it would be appropriate to take into account the observation by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Shree Ram Industries and a profitable reference can also be had to the observation by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of R.M.Yellati v. Asstt. Executive Engineer, (2006) 1 SCC 106 . In the said decisions Hon'ble Apex Court has explained that when the employer does not issue pay receipt, attendance card, identity card, etc and does not place on record the pay and wage Registers for the relevant period and the workman asserts, in his deposition, that he has worked for 240 days in a year then the obligation to prove that the workmen did not work for 240 days in preceding 12 months shifts to the employer. 11. 11. In this view of the matter and in light of above quoted observation the decision of the learned Labour Court to discard the said statement and to also draw adverse inference against the petitioner cannot be faulted. 11.1 Likewise the decision by learned Labour Court to accept the assertion by the claimants in their deposition and on that basis to hold that they had worked regularly and had worked for 240 days, cannot be rejected. The said decision by learned Labour Court (to hold that the claimants worked for 240 days) cannot be faulted. The said finding of fact recorded by learned Labour Court cannot be said to be incorrect or unjustified, much less, perverse. Therefore, there is no justification to interfere with the said finding of fact. 12. When it has emerged from the record that the learned labour Court's conclusion that the claimants had worked regularly and continuously and that they worked for 240 days is justified and cannot be faulted, it would follow as a corollary, that the claimants established fundamental aspect required for attracting section 25F viz. service for more than 12 months and attendance/service for 240 days or more in preceding 12 months. Learned Labour Court satisfied itself about compliance of the said requirement and held that Section 25F was attracted and applicable. The said conclusion also cannot be faulted 13. In this view of the matter, before discontinuing the service of the claimants, the petitioner should have followed the procedure prescribed by Section 25F and the conditions prescribed by said provision should have been complied. 14. It is not in dispute that the petitioner discontinued service of the claimants by oral order. 15. The fact that the termination was effected by oral instruction and without issuing any order is also not disputed by the petitioner. 15.1 The fact that while terminating the service of the claimants i.e. before or at the time when the service came to be terminated, the petitioner did not issue the notice contemplated under Section 25F and did not pay retrenchment compensation in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 25F of the I.D. Act is also not disputed. 16. 15.1 The fact that while terminating the service of the claimants i.e. before or at the time when the service came to be terminated, the petitioner did not issue the notice contemplated under Section 25F and did not pay retrenchment compensation in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 25F of the I.D. Act is also not disputed. 16. It emerges that on one hand the claimants established that Section 25F was attracted and applicable in their case and that the said provision was violated and procedure was not followed whereas on the other hand the employer failed to establish that the condition prescribed under Section 25F of the I.D. Act was followed and complied at the time when the service of the claimant came to be terminated. 16.1 Therefore, breach of Section 25F of the I.D. Act is established and learned Labour Court's finding of fact and conclusion on this count cannot be faulted. 17. When it was established before learned Labour Court that the service of the claimants were terminated in breach of statutory provision and the learned Labour Court also reached to the conclusion and recorded finding of fact to that effect then the only question which would survive before learned Labour Court was with regard to appropriate relief. 17.1 From the award it comes out that the learned Labour Court has not granted benefit of continuity of service but granted reinstatement simplicitor with 20% backwages. 18. In light of the fact that the claimants were engaged as daily wagers and irregularly and that they raised dispute after considerable delay, the direction and relief in form of continuity of service is, even otherwise, not justified. 18.1 Learned Labour Court itself has not granted said relief. 18.2 So far as the award granting 20% backwages is concerned this Court is of the view that in light of the facts and circumstances of the case the direction to pay backwages is unjustified. The said direction deserves to be set aside. 18.3 Even otherwise, in view of the fact that learned labour Court has not recorded any reason whatsoever for granting relief in form of backwages, the said direction deserves to be set aside, at least on that count. 18.4 Further, the claimants were engaged as daily wagers and that therefore their case cannot be equated with the case of permanent or regular employee. 19. 18.4 Further, the claimants were engaged as daily wagers and that therefore their case cannot be equated with the case of permanent or regular employee. 19. Under the circumstances and in light of foregoing discussion and for reason mentioned above, following order is passed:- (a) The challenge against order and direction granting reinstatement is rejected. (b) The direction to reinstate the claimants is confirmed. (c) However, with a view to removing any doubt with reference to continuity of service, it is clarified that the claimants shall not be entitled to continuity in service. (d) So far as direction to pay 20% backwages is concerned the said direction is set aside. With the said direction, captioned petitions are partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.