JUDGMENT K.M. THAKER, J. 1. Heard Mr.Upadyay, learned advocate for the petitioner corporation and Mr.Acharya, learned advocate for the respondent workman. 2. In present petition, the petitioner has challenged award dated 25.4.2016 passed by the learned Labour Court in Reference (LCM) No.414 of 2008 whereby the learned Labour Court directed present petitioner to reinstate the respondent (original claimant before the learned Labour Court) with continuity of service and 25% back-wages to be calculated and paid for the period from 1.5.2012 to 25.4.2016. The learned Labour Court refused to grant back-wages for the period from 11.10.2002 to 30.4.2012 for the reasons recorded in the award. 3. So far as the factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record that present respondent raised industrial dispute with the allegation that the opponent employer illegally terminated his service on 11.10.2002. With the said allegation, he demanded reinstatement and all benefits. 4. Appropriate government referred the dispute for adjudication to learned Labour Court. The learned Labour Court registered the dispute as Reference No.138 of 2003 (New Reference No.414 of 2008). 5. In his statement before the learned Labour Court, the claimant alleged that he was engaged by the opponent corporation in September 1987 and he worked with the opponent corporation as Junior Clerk. According to the claimant, he worked regularly and continuously and he was paid salary on daily wage basis. According to the claimant, the opponent corporation terminated his service by oral order on 11.10.2002 and while terminating his service the corporation did not follow procedure prescribed by law. He claimed that he had worked for 240 days in each year and he was transferred from one office to another to cause harassment and subsequently without following any procedure, his service came to be terminated. The claimant alleged that he served a notice on 21.10.2002 and demanded reinstatement, however, the respondent did not accept his request and therefore, he raised industrial dispute. With the said allegation, the claimant demanded that he should be reinstated with all benefits. 6. The opponent opposed the reference and the demand. The opponent claimed that it is engaged in activity for upliftment of persons from Scheduled Tribes and it undertakes various activities for said purpose. With the said allegation, the claimant demanded that he should be reinstated with all benefits. 6. The opponent opposed the reference and the demand. The opponent claimed that it is engaged in activity for upliftment of persons from Scheduled Tribes and it undertakes various activities for said purpose. The corporation denied the allegation by the claimant and the corporation contended that the claimant was engaged on ad hoc basis for temporary period and casual work and that since he was engaged on daily wage basis as and when need arose, the provisions under Sections 25F and 225G would not apply. It was also claimed that after the claimant was relieved, any other person was not engaged and even otherwise, the claimant was daily wager and that, therefore, Section 25H would not be applicable. The corporation also denied that the claimant had worked for 240 days in any year. The corporation also mentioned that the claimant had filed writ petition (Special Civil Application No.7188 of 1993) and claimed regularisation in service and he also claimed status of permanent workman and that the said petition came to be rejected vide order dated 1.5.1997. The corporation, however, in its reply, accepted that the service of the claimant was not required and that, therefore, he was not engaged by the corporation and the corporation stopped engaging the claimant with effect from 11.5.2002. With the said submission, the opponent corporation requested the learned Labour Court to reject the reference. 7. The learned Labour Court received the evidence from both sides, heard rival submissions and adjudicated the reference. On the basis of material available on record, the learned Labour Court reached to the conclusion that the corporation committed breach of Section 25F and that, therefore, the termination of claimant's service amounted to breach of Section 25F, hence illegal. Having reached to such conclusion, the learned Labour Court partly allowed the reference with the aforesaid directions. 8. The corporation has taken out present petition against the said award and directions. 9. Learned advocate for the petitioner corporation submitted that the learned Labour Court failed to appreciate that the claimant was engaged on daily age basis and that, therefore, the provisions of Sections 25F and 25G would not be applicable. 8. The corporation has taken out present petition against the said award and directions. 9. Learned advocate for the petitioner corporation submitted that the learned Labour Court failed to appreciate that the claimant was engaged on daily age basis and that, therefore, the provisions of Sections 25F and 25G would not be applicable. He submitted that the claimant failed to prove that any person was engaged by the corporation after his service was terminated and that, therefore, the applicability of Section 25H would not arise in present case. He submitted that the claimant had not worked for 240 days and that, therefore, there was no obligation to pay retrenchment compensation. According to learned advocate for the petitioner corporation, the award is erroneous, Therefore, it should be set aside. 10. According to learned advocate for the respondent, there is no error in the award. The findings of fact recorded by the learned Labour Court had placed on evidence. He would also submit that the claimant had worked for more than 12 months and he had worked for 240 days in each year and that, therefore, the conclusion by the learned Labour Court about applicability of Section 25F is just and legal. According to learned advocate for the workman, the corporation did not follow the procedure prescribed by Section 25F or Section 25G and that, therefore, the conclusions recorded by the learned Labour Court or the final decision are not erroneous and the petition should be rejected. 11. I have considered rival submissions and material available on record. I have also examined the award. 12. At the outset, it is relevant to note that the claimant had preferred writ petition (Special Civil Application No.7188 of 1993), wherein the respondent workman, undisputedly, claimed that his service should be regularised and status of permanent workman should be conferred to him and all benefits of permanent workman should granted. 12.1 The relief prayed for by the workman in the said petition brings out that even the claimant himself was aware that he is not a permanent workman and his appointment is not regular. He was aware about the fact that he has been irregularly appointed and his status with the corporation is that of daily wager. Being aware about the said position of his appointment, he claimed above mentioned relief in the said petition. He was aware about the fact that he has been irregularly appointed and his status with the corporation is that of daily wager. Being aware about the said position of his appointment, he claimed above mentioned relief in the said petition. Under the circumstances, the petitioner's claim that he was a permanent, cannot be believed. 13. In this background, question would arise as to whether the corporation could have terminated the service of the claimant, a daily wager, without complying the provisions of Sections 25F of the Act, or not. 14. In this context, it is relevant to note that the other relevant details about the claimant's appointment are not disputed or denied by the petitioner corporation (except that the claimant was a daily wager and not a permanent workman, as claimed by him). 14.1 It has emerged from the record that the claimant joined the service, as daily wager, with the petitioner corporation in 1987. 14.2 It has also emerged from the record that the corporation discontinued the service of the claimant and relieved him by oral instructions on 11.10.2002. 14.3 The learned Labour Court also reached to the conclusion that there was employer-employee relationship between the corporation and the claimant and that the claimant worked with the corporation as daily wager Junior Clerk and that his service came to be terminated by oral instructions on 11.10.2002. 14.4 Meaning thereby the claimant served with the corporation for about 5 years, on daily wage basis. 14.5 In this backdrop, the learned Labour Court has, after considering material available on record and after taking note of failure on the part of the corporation to place relevant evidence on record, reached to the conclusion that the claimant had completed continuous service as contemplated under Section 25B of the Act. 15. Learned advocate for the petitioner corporation failed to show any material from record of present petition or from the record of reference case that the above mentioned findings of facts recorded by the learned Labour Court are, in any manner, incorrect or perverse. Any material which would demonstrate that the finding of fact recorded by the learned Labour Court are contrary to the evidence which were available on record or even contrary to actual facts, is not shown by learned advocate for the petitioner. Any material which would demonstrate that the finding of fact recorded by the learned Labour Court are contrary to the evidence which were available on record or even contrary to actual facts, is not shown by learned advocate for the petitioner. 15.1 In this view of the matter, more particularly in absence of any material which would demonstrate and satisfy the Court and convince the Court that the findings of fact recorded by the learned Labour Court including the finding of fact that the claimant completed continuous service as contemplated under Section 25B, are incorrect and deserve to be interfered with, there is no basis or justification to disturb the said findings of fact. 15.2 In this background, it would emerge that the claimant worked with the corporation for more than 12 months and that he worked for 240 days as required by Section 25F of the Act. 16. In this view of the matter, question would arise about applicability of Section 25F. On this count, in case of L. Robert D souza v. Executive Engineer, Southern Railway & Another., (1982) 1 SCC 645 , Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the provisions under Section 25F would be applicable even in case of daily wager. 16.1 Thus, the services of the workman who are engaged on daily wage basis and worked for more than 240 days in preceding 12 months cannot be terminated without following the procedure prescribed by Section 25F. 17. In present case, it has emerged that the claimant had worked for more than 12 months and the learned Labour Court has also found that he had worked for 240 days and he fulfilled the requirement of continuous service prescribed under Section 25B of the Act. Meaning thereby the claimant fulfilled both conditions for applicability of Section 25F so far as the workman is concerned. 17.1 Therefore, the corporation was obliged to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 25F i.e. to pay retrenchment compensation in accordance with the said provision. 18. In present case, it is not in dispute that the service of the claimant came to be terminated by oral instructions on 11.10.2002 and at the relevant time the corporation did not pay retrenchment compensation. 18.1 Even the list of seniority was not published 7 days before (as required Rule 81) the date of termination. 18. In present case, it is not in dispute that the service of the claimant came to be terminated by oral instructions on 11.10.2002 and at the relevant time the corporation did not pay retrenchment compensation. 18.1 Even the list of seniority was not published 7 days before (as required Rule 81) the date of termination. Under the circumstances, breach of Section 25F and Rule 81 of the Gujarat Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules was established before the learned Labour Court. 18.2 In this view of the matter, the decision by the learned Labour Court holding that the corporation committed breach of Section 25F, cannot be faulted. 19. When the breach of statutory provision at the time of termination of an employee's service is established, then ordinary consequence would be reinstatement in service, unless any exceptional circumstances against such relief are established. 19.1 So far as present petition is concerned, it has emerged from the submissions by learned advocates for the petitioner corporation and the respondent workman that the claimant has already crossed prescribed age of superannuation. 19.2 Learned advocate for the respondent workman would submit that the claimant crossed prescribed age of superannuation on 30.6.2018. In that view of the matter, now i.e. after 30.6.2018 the direction to reinstate the claimant is not practicable. 19.3 However, it would not invalidate the direction to reinstate the claimant inasmuch as at the time when the award came to be passed, the claimant had not crossed age of superannuation. 19.4 Any other compelling circumstance which would justify the employer's inability to reinstate the claimant, is not established in present case. 19.5 Under the circumstances, there is no reason or justification to disturb the direction to the petitioner corporation to reinstate the claimant. 19.6 Therefore, the said direction is confirmed. 20. Other question which would arise with reference to appropriate relief, is about back-wages. 20.1 In present case, the learned Labour Court has taken note of the fact that the claimant, after raising industrial dispute (after the order of reference was passed), did not attend the proceeding before the learned Labour Court for long time and that, therefore, the Court was compelled and was let with no alternative but to dismiss the reference on ground of non-prosecution. Consequently, the learned Labour Court had dismissed the reference case on ground of non-prosecution vide order dated 6.10.2009. Consequently, the learned Labour Court had dismissed the reference case on ground of non-prosecution vide order dated 6.10.2009. 20.2 Ultimately, when the workman preferred application seeking restoration of reference proceeding, the reference case came to be restored by order dated 1.5.2012. 20.3 In that view of the matter, after having taken note of the fact that the workman did not prosecute the reference from 2003 to 2012, the learned Labour Court denied the back-wages for the said period. 20.4 The said direction and denial of back-wages for the period from 2003 to 2012 is eminently just and proper. 20.5 The learned Labour Court had, before dismissing the reference on ground of non-prosecution, waited from 2003 to 2009 and ultimately the said reference came to be dismissed on ground of non-prosecution in October 2009. 20.6 Thereafter, the claimant consumed further 3 years in getting the reference restored. 20.7 Under the circumstances, the decision refusing back-wages for the period upto 1.5.2012 is just, legal, correct, equitable and proper. 20.8 Even otherwise, since the workman has not challenged the said decision i.e. refusal of back-wages for period from 2003 to May 2012, any question or issue of the propriety of said decision does not arise. The workman has accepted said decision. As mentioned above, there is ample justification for the said decision and it cannot be faulted. 21. The learned Labour Court has thereafter considered the period from 1.5.2012 to the date of award. For the said period, the learned Labour Court has awarded 25% back-wages. 21.1 As mentioned above, the said decision by the learned Labour Court i.e. awarding 25% back-wages is accepted by the workman and the workman has not challenged the said decision. 21.2 On the other hand, the learned Labour Court has recorded sufficient and cogent reasons for awarding 25% back-wages and for refusing 75% back-wages. 21.3 Any material is not available on record and the petitioner has also failed to show any material or any circumstance which would convince this Court to set aside the direction granting 25% back-wages. 21.4 Therefore, the said decision and direction is confirmed and not disturbed. 22. This leaves behind the direction granting benefit of continuity of service. 22.1 From the foregoing discussion, it has emerged that the claimant worked only as daily wager during entire tenure of his service i.e. from 1997 to 2002. 21.4 Therefore, the said decision and direction is confirmed and not disturbed. 22. This leaves behind the direction granting benefit of continuity of service. 22.1 From the foregoing discussion, it has emerged that the claimant worked only as daily wager during entire tenure of his service i.e. from 1997 to 2002. 22.2 It has also emerged, as undisputed fact, that the claimant was engaged on ad hoc basis and without following procedure for selection and recruitment. 22.3 Of course, an employer who itself does not follow the procedure / rules for selection and recruitment, cannot take disadvantage of its own wrong. A wrong-doer cannot be benefited by its own wrong and it cannot subsequently claim that the appointment was irregular and therefore any benefit should not be granted. 22.4 However, in present case, the fact cannot be ignored that the claimant was engaged on ad hoc and daily wage basis and that he worked as daily wager and not as a regular and permanent employee of the corporation. 22.5 The said distinction termination of permanent workman and termination of daily wager cannot be equated and cannot be put on same pedestal in matter of determining final relief at least in case of benefit of continuity of service. 22.6 Therefore, the relief which may be granted by the Court in respect of regular and permanent employee would not be mechanically and automatically applicable to the case of the daily wager. 22.7 Besides this, in present case, it has also emerged that the claimant did not pursue and prosecute the reference from 2003 to 2012. 22.8 The said entire period was consumed and wasted on account of indolence, negligence and conduct of the workman. 22.9 He cannot derive benefit of his said conduct. 22.10 If the direction granting continuity of service is confirmed, then it would amount to granting benefit of the period during which the claimant remained negligent, indolent and did not bother to prosecute his reference case. 22.11 It would also amount to granting premium for such conduct. 22.12 Under the circumstances and in light of the facts of present case, the direction granting continuity of service deserves to be set aside. 23. 22.11 It would also amount to granting premium for such conduct. 22.12 Under the circumstances and in light of the facts of present case, the direction granting continuity of service deserves to be set aside. 23. Therefore, the following order is passed: (a) The decision and direction by the learned Labour Court holding that the termination is illegal and directing the reinstatement of the workman is not disturbed; (b) The decision and direction refusing back-wages for the period from 11.10.2002 to 30.4.2012 is also confirmed. The refusal of wages for the said period is not disturbed. The said direction is confirmed; (c) Likewise, the direction granting 25% back-wages from 1.5.2012 to 25.4.2016 (i.e. date of award) is also confirmed and the said direction is not disturbed; (d) However, so far as the direction granting benefit of continuity of service is concerned, the said direction is set aside; (e) Since the claimant has already crossed the age of superannuation, question of actual reinstatement would now not survive, therefore, the petitioner would do well to pay the back-wages as per the direction of the learned Labour Court as expeditiously as possible. With the aforesaid directions, observations and clarifications, the petition is disposed of. Orders accordingly. Notice is discharged.