JUDGMENT : 1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in which, the petitioners have challenged the award dated 23.10.2019 passed by the Labour Court, Godhra in Reference (T) No.1/2015, by which, the Labour Court directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondent no.1 in service with continuity and 50% backwages. 2. Heard learned advocate, Mr. H.S. Munshaw appearing for the petitioners, learned advocate, Mr. Dipak Dave for the respondent no.1 and learned AGP Mr. Bhargav Pandya for the respondent no.2. 3. The facts of the case leading to filing of the present petition are as under, 3.1 The Panchmahals District Panchayat and Godhra Taluka Panchayat are constituted under the provision of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993. On an application being made by the respondent no.1 on account of retirement of regular and permanent employee in the cadre of Panchmahals District Panchayat on attaining the age of superannuation, the respondent no.1 was offered work in the month of January, 2001 by Godhra Taluka Panchayat. The respondent no.1 was not appointed after following regular recruitment procedure. Thereafter one Mr. Chimanbhai Bijalbhai Machhi, who was regular and permanent employee of the cadre of driver of Amreli District Panchayat, was granted benefit of inter-district transfer to Panchmahals District Panchayat in accordance with Rules framed under the Gujarat Panchayat Act by the respondent no.2 through order dated 10.05.2013 and thereupon, he was posted at Godhra Taluka Panchayat by the petitioner no.2 as a competent authority on 01.07.2013 and in pursuance thereto, the said Mr. Machhi reported for duty on 11.07.2013. 3.2 However as only one vehicle is allotted to Godhra Taluka Panchayat and Mr. C.B. Machhi took over the charge on 11.07.2013, it was not possible for the petitioners to continue the respondent no.1 as daily wage driver and, therefore, he was relieved from the services vide order dated 11.07.2013. 3.3 The respondent no.1, therefore, preferred Reference (T) No.1/2015 before the Labour Court, Godhra. The statement of claim was filed by the respondent no.1 and it is prayed that the respondent no.1 be reinstated with continuity of service and with full backwages. 3.4 The petitioners filed written statement before the Labour Court and also produced documentary as well as oral evidence. The statement of claim was filed by the respondent no.1 and it is prayed that the respondent no.1 be reinstated with continuity of service and with full backwages. 3.4 The petitioners filed written statement before the Labour Court and also produced documentary as well as oral evidence. 3.5 The Labour Court, vide impugned award dated 23.10.2019, directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondent no.1 in service with continuity of service and 50% backwages on the ground that the petitioners have violated the provision of Sections 25(F) and 25(G) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “ID Act” for short). 3.6 The petitioners have, therefore, filed the present petition. 4. Learned advocate, Mr. Munshaw assailed the impugned award on the ground that the respondent no.1 was offered work as daily wage driver purely on temporary and adhoc basis on retirement of regular driver on attaining the age of superannuation by the Godhra Taluka Panchayat. However, when the regular driver, Mr. C.B. Machhi has taken over the charge on 11.07.2013, the respondent no.1 was not offered work and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners have violated the provision of the ID Act. 5. Learned advocate, Mr. Munshaw would thereafter contend that provision of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the ID Act was attracted as the respondent no.1 was offered work on a vacant post required to be occupied by a regular and permanent employee of the cadre of driver of Panchmahal District Panchayat. 6. It is also contended that as such, there is only one vehicle available with the petitioner – Taluka Panchayat and, therefore, Mr. Machhi, who is regular and permanent employee, is appointed on the post of driver and, therefore, there is no work available with the petitioners. Hence, the Labour Court ought not to have directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondent no.1 with continuity of service. 7. Learned advocate, Mr. Munshaw would further submit that the respondent no.1 was working as driver and is a skilled worker and, therefore also, it is not believable that he remained idle after the date of alleged termination and, hence, the Labour Court ought not to have awarded the back wages. 8. After referring to the affidavit filed by the concerned Taluka Development Officer in pursuance to the order dated 06.01.2020 passed by this Court, learned advocate, Mr. 8. After referring to the affidavit filed by the concerned Taluka Development Officer in pursuance to the order dated 06.01.2020 passed by this Court, learned advocate, Mr. Munshaw submitted that three different daily wage drivers are working in different Taluka Panchayat and, therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent no.1 was the senior so far as the petitioner – Taluka Panchyat is concerned. 9. Learned advocate, Mr. Munshaw has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Haryana State Cooperative Supply Marketing Federation Limited Vs. Sanjay, reported in (2009) 14 SCC 43 . 10. Learned advocate, Mr. Munshaw has therefore urged that the impugned award passed by the Labour Court be quashed and set aside. 11. On the other hand, learned advocate, Mr. Dave has opposed this petition and mainly contended that the respondent no.1 was appointed as driver by the petitioner – Taluka Panchayat in the year 2001 and after a period of 12 years of continuous service, his services were terminated in the year 2013 without following mandatory provision of the ID Act. Learned advocate, Mr. Dave has submitted that in fact, the witnesses of the petitioners also admitted that the respondent no.1 has worked continuously for a period of 12 years i.e. from 28.02.2001 to 11.07.2013. Learned advocate, Mr. Dave further submits that the recommendation was also made by the Panchayat for regularization of the services of the respondent no.1, however surprisingly, instead of regularizing the services of the respondent no.1, he was terminated. It is also submitted that when the recommendation was made to make permanent four drivers, the name of the respondent no.1 was at Sr. No.1 and thus, the respondent no.1 was the senior most driver and till date, other drivers, who are juniors to the respondent no.1, are still working and, therefore, specific finding is recorded by the Labour Court that the petitioners have violated the provision contained in Section 25(G) of the ID Act. Learned advocate, Mr. Dave further submitted that the respondent no.1 is also entitled to get the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 issued by the State Government as the said Resolution of the State Government is adopted by the petitioners. Learned advocate, Mr. Dave further submitted that the respondent no.1 is also entitled to get the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 issued by the State Government as the said Resolution of the State Government is adopted by the petitioners. It is, therefore, urged that the Labour Court has not committed any error while passing impugned award and, therefore, this Court may not interfere with the said award while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. Learned advocate, Mr. Dave has placed reliance upon following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, (1) in case of Ajaypal Singh Vs. Haryana Warehousing Corporation, reported in 2015 (6) SCC 321 ; (2) in case of Raj Kumar Dixit Vs. Vijay Kumar Gauri Shanker reported in (2015) 9 SCC 345 ; (3) in case of Gauri Shanker Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2015) 12 SCC 754 . 13. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it is revealed that the respondent no.1 was appointed as driver by the petitioner – Taluka Panchayat on 28.02.2001 and he has continuously worked on the said post for a period of 12 years and, thereafter, his services were terminated on 11.07.2013. The respondent no.1, therefore, filed Reference before the Labour Court and the Labour Court passed impugned award. From the material placed on record, it is further revealed that before terminating the services of the respondent no.1, the petitioners have not complied with the mandatory provision of Sections 25(F) and 25(G) of the ID Act. 14. During the course of submissions, learned advocate for the petitioners has made alternative submission that even assuming that there is violation of provision contained in Section 25(F) of the ID Act even then, lumpsum compensation can be awarded to the respondent no.1, however, the said submission canvassed by learned advocate for the petitioners cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case. 15. 15. It appears from the record that the concerned officers of the petitioners made recommendation for regularization of the services of the respondent no.1 and three other drivers, for which, proposal was also sent by passing necessary Resolution and there is specific reference of Rule 20(3) of the Gujarat Panchayat Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, and the District Development Officer, Panchmahals thereafter made recommendation to the Government, copies of relevant documents are placed on record vide separate compilation. 16. It is not in dispute that three other drivers, who are juniors to the respondent no.1, are still working with the concerned Taluka Panchayat as per the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners. Thus it is not in dispute that juniors to the respondent no.1 are still working as driver with the concerned Taluka Panchayat, which are under the District Panchayat, Panchmahals. Thus on the basis of the evidence produced before the Labour Court, specific finding is recorded by the Labour Court that the petitioners have violated the provision contained in Section 25(G) of the ID Act. 17. Even the petitioners have failed to produce any evidence before the Labour Court pointing out that the respondent no.1 got the employment elsewhere and, therefore, he is not entitled to claim any backwages. 18. 17. Even the petitioners have failed to produce any evidence before the Labour Court pointing out that the respondent no.1 got the employment elsewhere and, therefore, he is not entitled to claim any backwages. 18. In the decision rendered in case of Gauri Shanker (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in Paragraph Nos.10, 16 and 17 as under, “[10] The learned counsel for the workman submits that once the Labour Court which is the fact finding court recorded the finding of fact on the basis of pleadings and evidence on record and answered the points of dispute after adjudication of the same and held that the termination order passed against the workman is in violation of Sections 25F clauses (a) and (b), 25G and 25H of the Act, the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in exercise of its Judicial Review power under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India in holding that the workman is a casual workman as he was intermittently working as a daily wage worker and therefore, he is not entitled for reinstatement as awarded by the Labour Court by following the principle of normal rule and further erroneously has awarded reinstatement of the workman and compensation of Rs.2,500/- for the hardship and difficulties suffered by him which is contrary to the judgments of this Court in a catena of cases. [16] The said finding of the Labour Court is reaffirmed by the learned single Judge which also affirmed the finding that the action of the respondent- Department in terminating the services of the workman w.e.f. 1.4.1992 is a case of retrenchment as defined under Section 2(oo) of the Act as the termination of the services of the workman is otherwise for misconduct by the respondent - Department. Further, undisputedly the non-compliance of the mandatory requirements as provided under the provisions of Sections 25F clauses (a) and (b), 25G and 25H of the Act read with Rules 77 and 78 of the relevant Rajasthan Industrial Dispute Rules, 1958 has rendered the order of termination passed against the workman void ab initio in law. Further, undisputedly the non-compliance of the mandatory requirements as provided under the provisions of Sections 25F clauses (a) and (b), 25G and 25H of the Act read with Rules 77 and 78 of the relevant Rajasthan Industrial Dispute Rules, 1958 has rendered the order of termination passed against the workman void ab initio in law. The Labour Court in the absence of any material evidence on record in justification of the case of the respondent-Department has rightly recorded the finding of fact and held that the order of termination passed against the workman is bad in law, the same being void ab initio in law it has passed an award for reinstatement of the workman in his post in exercise of its original jurisdiction under provision of Section 11 of the Act. The Labour Court has rightly followed the normal rule of reinstatement of the workman in his original post as it has found that the order of termination is void ab-initio in law for non compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Act referred to supra. However, the Labour Court is not correct in denying backwages without assigning any proper and valid reasons though the employer did not prove either its stringent financial conditions for denial of back wages or that workman has been gainfully employed during the period from the date of order of termination till the award was passed in favour of the workman except granting Rs.2,500/- as compensation for the suffering caused to the workman. The same is erroneously modified by the learned single Judge who recorded the finding of fact for the first time by holding that the workman is a casual employee intermittently working in the respondent-Department. The learned single Judge of the High Court has exceeded his jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as per the legal principles laid down by this Court in the case of Harjinder Singh (supra) wherein this Court has held thus:- "17. The learned single Judge of the High Court has exceeded his jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as per the legal principles laid down by this Court in the case of Harjinder Singh (supra) wherein this Court has held thus:- "17. Before concluding, we consider it necessary to observe that while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution in matters like the present one, the High Courts are duty bound to keep in mind that the Industrial Disputes Act and other similar legislative instruments are social welfare legislations and the same are required to be interpreted keeping in view the goals set out in the preamble of the Constitution and the provisions contained in Part IV thereof in general and Articles 38, 39(a) to (e), 43 and 43A in particular, which mandate that the State should secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people, ensure equality between men and women and equitable distribution of material resources of the community to sub-serve the common good and also ensure that the workers get their dues. More than 41 years ago, Gajendragadkar, J, opined that "the concept of social and economic justice is a living concept of revolutionary import; it gives sustenance to the rule of law and meaning and significance to the ideal of welfare State" - State of Mysore v. Workers of Gold Mines AIR 1958 SC 923 ." The said principle has been reiterated by this Court in Jasmer Singh v. State Of Haryana & Anr. (Civil Appeal NO. 346 of 2015 decided on 13.1.2015). [17] Therefore, in view of the above said case, the learned single Judge in exercise of its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India erroneously interfered with the award of reinstatement and future salary from the date of award till date of reinstatement as rightly passed by the Labour Court recording valid and cogent reasons in answer to the points of dispute holding that the workman has worked from 1.1.1987 to 1.4.1992 and that non-compliance of the mandatory requirements under Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act by the respondent-Department rendered its action of termination of the services of the workman as void ab initio in law and instead the High Court erroneously awarded a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. The learned single Judge and the Division Bench under their supervisory jurisdiction should not have modified the award by awarding compensation in lieu of reinstatement which is contrary to the well settled principles of law laid down in catena of cases by this Court.” 19. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi Vs. Hindalco Industries Ltd., reported in (2014) 11 SCC 85 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down guidelines as to when the High Court can interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 20. Keeping in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, upon which reliance has been placed by learned advocate for the petitioner, if the facts of the present case as discussed hereinabove are examined, it is clear that the Labour Court has, after considering oral as well documentary evidence placed on record, specifically held that there is violation of provision contained in Section 25(F) and 25(G) of the ID Act and the petitioners have adopted unfair labour practice. This Court is also of the view that there is no error committed by the Labour Court while passing impugned award. 21. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned award while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. 22. Registry to communicate this order to the concerned person/authority by fax or email.