ORDER : Sonia Gokani, J. 1. These group of petitions where a common order of the Labour Court, Surendranagar is questioned, has been passed in I.D. Misc. Application No. 24 of 2018 on dated 17.12.2018 and other allied matters. 2. The brief facts would be necessary for the Court to consider the prayers which have been made at para-8 as detailed herein-under: "A. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the impugned award dated 17.12.2018 passed by the Labour Court, Surendranagar in I.D. Misc. Application No. 24/2018 rejecting the application of the petitioner. B. Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2 to restore original consolidated references being Reference (LCS) Nos. 102/1995, 165/1995, 166/1995, 168/1995, 15/1996 and 101/1996 and further be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2 Labour Court to render the petitioner a fair opportunity of being heard; C. Pending admission and final hearing of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2 i.e. Learned Labour Court to call for the original record and proceedings of the I.D. Misc. Application No. 24/2018; D. Your Lordships may be pleased to grant any other and or further relief as deemed fit in the interest of justice." 3. The facts for the purpose of adjudication are drawn from Special Civil Application No. 16855 of 2019. 3.1. The petitioner was working with the respondent no. 1 authority - Executive Engineer, Panchayat Roads and Buildings Division, Patdi, Surendranagar as a daily wager in road repair branch since many years. He was also paid as per the Minimum Wages Act. 3.2. The respondent no. 1 authority vide order dated 21.09.1992, retrenched the present petitioner alongwith other 72 workers (total 73 workers) who worked as daily wagers. Their plea was that without following due procedure under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.D. Act' for short), this action of authority of retrenchment was made. 3.3. This was challenged by way of Reference Case (LCS) No. 102 of 1995 by one Mr. Anwarkhan Amirkhan through the representative Mr. Himmatsinh Chauhan and statement of demand had been referred before the Labour Court with the prayer of reinstatement. Likewise, others had preferred References (LCS) No. 165/1995, 168/1995, 15/96 and 101/1996. 3.4. 3.3. This was challenged by way of Reference Case (LCS) No. 102 of 1995 by one Mr. Anwarkhan Amirkhan through the representative Mr. Himmatsinh Chauhan and statement of demand had been referred before the Labour Court with the prayer of reinstatement. Likewise, others had preferred References (LCS) No. 165/1995, 168/1995, 15/96 and 101/1996. 3.4. These consolidated References were allowed by the Labour Court, Surendranagar according to the petitioners, on 27.05.1997 by a common order and the respondent no. 1 was directed to reinstate all the workers including the present petitioner with 60% back-wages. 3.5. The petitioner and others had given the joining report to the Deputy Administrative Officer on the ground that they had been granted the reinstatement with back-wages. 3.6. On 13.06.1997, the petitioner-employee had given joining report to the District Administrative Officer and the District Development Officer. 3.7. The Labour Court forwarded the award to the Labour Commissioner, Ahmedabad. It was realized that the award of reinstatement was never passed by the Labour Court and it was a bogus award which had been produced. 3.8. The inquiry was initiated by the Labour Commissioner, Ahmedabad. The Labour Court had informed the D.D.O. on 24.11.1997 that the award which was passed was dated 27.05.1997 and no other award had been passed. 3.9. A criminal complaint came to be lodged by the office of the respondent no. 1 at Bajana Police Station, Patdi against 35 employees on the ground of production of concocted document. This had culminated into C.R. No. I-96 of 1997. 3.10. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.05.1997 of the Labour Court, Surendranagar, the same had been challenged before this Court by way Special Civil Application No. 5682 of 1998, wherein, this Court passed an order on 20.08.1998 (Mr. Justice S.D. Pandit), which read as follows: "The petitioner has come before this court against the award passed by the Labour Court of Surendranagar in References Nos. 102/95, 165/95, 168/95, 15/96 and 101/96. It is claim of the petitioner that petitioner was not served with the notice in the references and without serving the notice of the references, the references are heard and disposed of by passing the award in favour of the workmen. The said claim made by the petitioner shows that the Labour Court has passed an ex-parte award. It is claim of the petitioner that petitioner was not served with the notice in the references and without serving the notice of the references, the references are heard and disposed of by passing the award in favour of the workmen. The said claim made by the petitioner shows that the Labour Court has passed an ex-parte award. Therefore, in these circumstances in view of the provisions of Rule 126 of the Gujarat Rules, the petitioner has to first approach the Labour Court by giving an application for setting aside the ex-parte order. When such application is file by the petitioner, the Labour Court should hear the same on merits and in case if the Labour Court happened to allow the said application, the Labour Court will have to give an opportunity to both the sides of hearing of original reference and to decide the original reference according to law. In case if unfortunately for the petitioner, his application for setting aside the order happened to be rejected, the petitioner will be at liberty to come before this court and to challenge the said order as well as its original reference. In the above circumstances, petition is disposed of with no order as to costs." 3.11. The respondent no. 1 filed an application for stay of the earlier award and the same had been allowed granting stay in favour of the respondent no. 1. 3.12. It is the grievance on the part of the present petitioners that without issuance of notice or summons to the petitioners alongwith other employees, the Labour Court, Surendranagar vide its order dated 12.05.2004 had rejected all the References and the petitioners were never intimated. 3.13. One of the employees, out of 73 workmen, challenged the said judgment and order by preferring Special Civil Application No. 8135 of 2005, the same was dismissed by this Court on 28.06.2005. The relevant paragraphs deserve reproduction at this stage which read as under: "3. Ms. Vinita Vinayak, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent did not produce the muster roll for the relevant period, adverse inference ought to have been drawn against the respondent employer and it should be held that the petitioner has completed 240 days. She has also further submitted that juniors to the petitioner were continued and therefore also, there was breach of Section 25H of the I.D. Act. She has also further submitted that juniors to the petitioner were continued and therefore also, there was breach of Section 25H of the I.D. Act. However, considering the recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of RAJASTHAN STATE GANGANAGAR S. MILLS LTD. V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER, (2004) 8 SCC 161 and the another decision in case of MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, FARIDABAD V. SIRI NIWAS reported in (2004) 8 SCC 195 it is for the petitioner workman to prove by leading evidence and produce documentary evidence that he has completed 240 days continuous service in a preceding year and mere non production of muster roll cannot entail adverse inference against the employer and merely on the basis that muster roll is not produced, it cannot be held that the workman has completed 240 days. Under the circumstances, taking into consideration the aforesaid two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. So far as the breach of Section 25H of the I.D. Act is concerned, no specific averments are made and even otherwise, in view of the fact that the petitioner has tried to be reinstated by producing bogus judgment and award which disentitle the petitioner any relief and the petitioner cannot be reinstated in service. 4. For the reasons stated above, there is no substance in the present petition and same deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed accordingly." There has been no further challenge to the said order. 3.14. On 20.02.2017, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhangadhra passed the judgment in Criminal Case No. 63 of 2015 (Old Case No. 156 of 2013) and for want of evidence gave acquittal to the petitioners. They have been acquitted from the charges under Sections 468, 471, 420, 120-B r/w. 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 3.15. In post 20.02.2017 period, on getting the acquittal, the petitioners approached the Labour Court, Surendranagar by an application being I.D. Misc. Application No. 24 of 2018 under Rule-26A of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.D. Rules' for short). 3.15. In post 20.02.2017 period, on getting the acquittal, the petitioners approached the Labour Court, Surendranagar by an application being I.D. Misc. Application No. 24 of 2018 under Rule-26A of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.D. Rules' for short). The Court rejected the application on the ground that the Reference Cases had been decided on merits, and therefore, there is no an ex-parte order or award to be adjudicated bi-partite, and therefore, this order dated 17.12.2018 has aggrieved the petitioners and is impugned in the present petition. 4. This Court has heard learned advocate Mr. Harshit M. Karathia who appears with learned advocate Mr. R.N. Jadav for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent-State. The Court also considered Rule-26-A of the I.D. Rules, 1966 and also the chronology of events and all the judgment and orders which had been passed in case of all these petitioners. Both the sides have argued at length putting forth their respective stands. 5. At the outset, Rule 26-A of the I.D. Rules, deserves reproduction, which reads as follows: "26A. Setting aside ex-parte orders awards and Reports: (1) On an application made within thirty days from the date of knowledge of an ex-parte order, award or report by the party concerned, the Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or Arbitrator may, for sufficient cause; set aside after notice to the opposite party such order, award, or report as the case may be. (2) The Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or Arbitrator may on sufficient cause being shown, extend the period referred to in sub-rule (1): (3) An application under sub-rule, (1) shall be supported by an affidavit." 6. It is quite clear from this Rule that an application is permitted to be made within 30 days from the date of knowledge of an ex-parte order, award or report by the party concerned, the Board, Labour Court, Tribunal or Arbitrator if chooses, it can set aside the said award or order or report after issuance of notice to the otherside. Such an application needs to be supported by the affidavit. 7. In the instant case, as is very clear from the chronology of events that for the first time award which was purportedly passed directing the reinstatement and 60% of the back-wages was, in fact, a bogus award. Such an application needs to be supported by the affidavit. 7. In the instant case, as is very clear from the chronology of events that for the first time award which was purportedly passed directing the reinstatement and 60% of the back-wages was, in fact, a bogus award. It is also to be noted that for the first time when the award came to be passed, no opportunity of hearing was given to the respondent authority, which was later given by virtue of an order of this Court passed on 20.08.1998. The Labour Court took up the matter once again and decided the same by a detailed order dated 12.05.2004, while dismissing the References being Reference No. 102/1995 and allied References, the Court also took note of the Criminal Case No. 156 of 2003 and I-C.R. No. 96 of 1997 registered with Bajana Police Station, the dismissal of the References were both on merits as well as on account of criminal case which had been filed against the present petitioner. 8. Only one person challenged the judgment and award by way of Special Civil Application No. 8135 of 2005. This Court (Coram: M.R. Shah, J, as His Lordship then was) was not inclined to interfere, as there was a criminal case pending, and noting the aspect of bogus judgment and award, by which an attempt was made to be reinstated, it held that the same disentitled the petitioner of any relief. The Court was also not inclined to consider his case by noting that the particular workman had not proved his case by documentary evidence as well as by other evidence that he had completed 240 days of continuous service in preceding year, and merely the non-production of muster roll cannot entail the adverse inference. This was an examination of the award in respect of one particular employee. The rest of them had not challenged it and the only application that had been made by the rest was after they were acquitted from the criminal charges in a criminal case which was pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhangadhra. 9. This Court also notices that it was not a case of either ex-parte award nor was it a case of the Court deciding only on the aspect of criminal complaint pending against the present petitioner. 9. This Court also notices that it was not a case of either ex-parte award nor was it a case of the Court deciding only on the aspect of criminal complaint pending against the present petitioner. It decided both on merits as well as on the issue of pendency of the criminal case. Therefore, the Labour Court in its order dated 17.12.2018 has rightly held that predecessor of his, had already decided all the References on merits and one of the persons had also challenged before this Court in Special Civil Application No. 8135 of 2005. Had it been a case of ex-parte award, the Coordinate Bench could have directed the matters to be decided on merits, which had also not happened and it is not being disputed that challenge was made on both the counts, on merits as well as on account of rejection because of the pendency of the criminal cases. There could be no need of any interpretation, as this Court has held that the References have been dismissed on merits. It is also to be noted that, in these references, the oral evidences are recorded of the individuals, and therefore, to say that they had not been aware of the remand of the matter or that they had not been issued the notice, when all throughout they have been represented by the legal representatives, when all the References have been consolidated and decided on merits, the request for once again deciding the same on merits for the reasons given by the petitioners, is rightly held to be not sustainable under the Law. Accordingly, all these petitions are also not to be entertained and deserve to be disposed of. 10. At this stage, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that on account of the pendency of the criminal cases, since most of the petitioners had not challenged the judgment and award of the Labour Court, they may not be non-suited on the ground of pendency of the criminal case. The acquittal of theirs would give them an opportunity to challenge the award on merits. The acquittal of theirs would give them an opportunity to challenge the award on merits. This Court chooses not to opine on that aspect, if the fresh cause of action is available to the petitioners to challenge the judgment and award on merit, it is for them to take up such cause and any such challenge if made at a future date, the same shall have no adverse effect on account of dismissal of these petitions. None of the findings and observations here would determine adversely the rights of the parties. In view of the above, all these petitions stand dismissed and disposed of.