ORDER : 1. Although, these petitions have arise from a common judgment and award dated 13.04.2018 delivered by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No. 1817 of 2001, directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent - employee in service without backwages or continuity of service and with cost of Rs. 5,000/-. 2. The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has preferred the Special Civil Application No. 21135 of 2018 questioning the entire award whereas the employee - Jashwantbhai Maganlal Chauhan has preferred Special Civil Application No. 4464 of 2019 seeking back wages and other benefits. The employer and employee shall be referred to as the petitioner and respondent respectively. 3. The brief facts leading to these petitions are as follows:- 3.1. There was a natural calamity in the year 1997 and therefore to meet with the natural calamity, from 01.08.1997 to 31.10.1997 the appointment of respondent was made by the petitioner. The same had been then extended from 02.11.1997 to 31.01.1998 and then from 02.02.1998 to 03.04.1998. 3.2. The respondent continued to work as a daily wager Sanitary Sub-Inspector in a flood like situation in the year 1997 along with 7 other individuals. 3.3. On 01.05.1998, the services of the respondent came to an end. The rest of the employees who were appointed on an ad-hoc basis have accepted the ending of the contract, whereas, the present respondent has raised the dispute and approached the Labour Court for the retrenchment having come without following the due procedure and therefore, Reference (LCA) No. 1817 of 2001 was preferred before the Labour Court, Ahmedabad, where the statement of claim had been made by the respondent. The defense statement had been presented by the petitioner and after availing the opportunities to the parties, the Labour Court had allowed the reference with a direction to reinstate the respondent in service with cost of Rs. 5,000/- without continuity and without any back wages. 4. According to the petitioner, there were seven other qualified individuals appointed to meet with the urgency of flood situation, without undertaking the due procedure of recruitment for temporary period. The Trial Court has erred in not appreciating that seven other daily wagers who were appointed to meet with the administrative exigency have not challenged it and were relieved. There was no discriminatory practice adopted by the petitioner nor was there any breach of provisions of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Trial Court has erred in not appreciating that seven other daily wagers who were appointed to meet with the administrative exigency have not challenged it and were relieved. There was no discriminatory practice adopted by the petitioner nor was there any breach of provisions of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Trial Court has disregarded the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the respondent is not covered within the definition of the workman. There has been unexplained delay of three years in preferring the reference and therefore also, the same deserves to be dismissed. 5. The respondent – employee has lamented the fact that the Court ought to have granted the benefit of continuity and back wages. The evidence of petitioner since was closed as no evidence has been adduced orally or the documentary. This carelessness on the part of the petitioner deserves to be viewed strictly as it hardly has any regard to the judicial proceedings. 6. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 324 and the decision of this Hon'ble Court rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1416 of 2016 in case of Navnit K. Waghela vs. Gujarat Maritime Board. 7. This Court has heard extensively learned advocate Mr. Munshaw who has heavily relied on the administrative order passed by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner clearly reflecting that eight persons were needed to be appointed to meet with the flood situation as that had resulted into a serious health issues and issues of cleanliness. The appointment was purely on adhoc basis by taking their services for eight hours in a grade of Rs. 1200/1800 as Sanitary Sub-Inspector. They were to be relieved on 15.07.1997. This document dated 11.07.1997 is produced for the first time before this Court. Moreover, this document had not been produced before the Trial Court. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Vasavada has strenuously urged that it was an artificial contract given and when the respondent had completed 240 days in the total career of his service, the retrenchment could not have come without following the law. He further has strongly objected to the new document being adduced before this Court for the first time. According to him, the respondent is deprived of the opportunity to meet with the same. He further has strongly objected to the new document being adduced before this Court for the first time. According to him, the respondent is deprived of the opportunity to meet with the same. 9. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw fairly submits that they were not in a position to adduce this evidence before the Trial Court. 10. It is a matter of record that to meet with the challenge of the flood situation, on a contractual basis, the present respondent along with others had been appointed as a Sanitary Sub-Inspector. The initial appointment had continued by two separate orders and the same ended on 01.05.1998. It is not in dispute that between 1997 to 30.04.1998 the respondent has worked and he was aware that his appointment was not of a permanent nature. 11. The authority is always required to be fair and produce all relevant documents before the Trial Court which had availed the fullest opportunity to the parties. Undoubtedly, in the instant case, the petitioner has failed to adduce necessary evidence. It also emerges that it has not given any oral nor documentary evidence to reflect the true picture. 12. The respondent, of course, has not been able to establish the permanent nature of the job nor the continuity of any of those eight persons who had been appointed at the time of flood situation. The non-production of the documents and also not having led any evidence before the Trial Court and to produce everything in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, shall require this Court to remand the matter for the parties to adduce the evidence and for the other side to meet with the said challenge. 13. Considering the fact that the respondent has attained the age of superannuation on 14.02.2019 and as the dispute between the parties has continued from the year 1998, much water has flown and also bearing in mind the advanced age of the respondent, rather than remanding the matter back, this Court deems it appropriate to propose the lump-sum compensation to put an end to the entire dispute. 14. This Court notices that while allowing the Reference (LCA) No. 1817 of 2001 on 13.04.2018, the Labour Court, Ahmedabad directed the employer – Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to reinstate the workman – Jashvantbhai Maganlal Chauhan within a period of 30 days, without back wages. 15. 14. This Court notices that while allowing the Reference (LCA) No. 1817 of 2001 on 13.04.2018, the Labour Court, Ahmedabad directed the employer – Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to reinstate the workman – Jashvantbhai Maganlal Chauhan within a period of 30 days, without back wages. 15. This would make it incumbent unless otherwise directed the employer - Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to reinstate the workman and pay back wages from 01.06.2018. Therefore, considering the reinstatement by approaching the limit from 01.06.2018, the workman would be entitled to back-wages from 01.06.2018 till today. 16. According to Mr.Vasavada, learned advocate appearing for the workman, presently for the skilled employee, wages prescribed and prevalent is more than Rs.400 per day and considering the wage at the rate of Rs.400 per month from 01.06.2018 and striking the balance, this Court deems it appropriate to award lump-sum compensation so as to bring an end to the entire dispute for the reasons stated hereinabove. 17. The employer – Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- to the workman - Jashvantbhai Maganlal Chauhan, as lump-sum compensation, by way of full and final settlement towards all the claims and dues sought for by the respondent. The Award in question passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No. 1817 of 2001 on 13.04.2018, stands modified accordingly. 18. Both these petitions are disposed of in the above terms.