JUDGMENT : N.V. ANJARIA, J. Heard learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw for the appellants and learned advocate Mr. Dipak R. Dave for respondent No.1, at length. 2. The present Letters Patent Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment and order dated 29th May, 2020 of learned Single Judge delivered in Special Civil Application No.23013 of 2019 dismissing the said petition. 2.1 The Special Civil Application was preferred by appellant herein – Taluka Development Officer, Godhra Taluka Panchayat, wherein it was prayed to set aside the judgment and award dated 23rd October, 2009 passed by Labour Court, Godhra in Reference (T) No.1 of 2019. The Labour Court allowed the Reference of the private respondent herein, directing his reinstatement in service on the original post with continuity benefit and with 50% back wages. 3. The private respondent herein invoked jurisdiction of the Labour Court by putting forward his case in the statement of claim (Exh.6) inter alia that he was engaged as Driver under the office of Taluka Panchayat, Godhra with effect from 28th February, 2001, that he was being paid salary of Rs.05,697/- and used to work during the scheduled duty hours. It was stated that though the letter of appointment was not issued, monthly salary bills were given. 3.1 It was the case of respondent-workman that after having put in services for more than 12 years, he was driven out from service with effect from 11th July, 2013 without assigning any reason and without paying any notice pay etc. The workman prayed before the Labour Court to declare the action of termination to be illegal and sought his reinstatement with back wages. 3.2 Contesting the Reference case of the respondent-workman, the employer in its written statement stated that workman was engaged as daily-rated workman. It was a defence raised that since the person working as permanent driver retired, work of driver was taken from the respondent as and when needed and the remuneration was paid accordingly. It was submitted that workman has no right to claim permanency and that his say about the payment of salary was not correct. It was the stand in other words that the work was taken from the respondent-driver on need-basis after the permanent driver had retired. It was submitted that workman has no right to claim permanency and that his say about the payment of salary was not correct. It was the stand in other words that the work was taken from the respondent-driver on need-basis after the permanent driver had retired. 3.3 The termination was sought to be justified by the first party employer stating that one Shri C.B. Machhi who was working as driver in the office of Development Commissioner, Gandhinagar, came to be posted at Godhra by way of inter-district transfer and since he took charge of driver on 11th July, 2013, the services of respondent-workman was not needed and came to be accordingly terminated. It was thus contended that since the engagement of the respondent was rendered not necessary as permanent Driver Shri Machhi was posted by way of transfer at Godhra Panchayat. As the engagement was dependent upon the work available and that the workman was paid the remuneration for the period of duties he discharged, he was not entitled to any relief as prayed for before the Labour Court. 3.4 The Labour Court allowed the Reference directing reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages as stated above. The challenge to the said judgment and award by the first party employer ended up with dismissal of Special Civil Application, which led to preferring of the present Letters Patent Appeal. 4. Learned advocate for the appellants reiterated the same set of contentions which the employer had raised before the Labour Court and again before the learned Single Judge. He submitted that respondent No.1 – workman was under Godhra Taluka Panchayat which had only one vehicle. It was highlighted that one Shri Chimanbhai Bijalbhai Machhi, a regular permanent employee of the cadre of Driver of Amreli District Panchayat, was granted benefit of inter-district transfer and was brought in the Panchmahal District. He came to be posted as permanent employee at Godhra Taluka Panchayat by appellant No.2-District Development Officer where, according to his submission, a post was lying vacant since 31st May, 1999. Order was passed in case of said Shri Machhi on 02nd July, 2013 and he took charge as Driver as permanent employee with effect from 11th July, 2013; due to which the present respondent No.1-workman was not required to be continued in service. Order was passed in case of said Shri Machhi on 02nd July, 2013 and he took charge as Driver as permanent employee with effect from 11th July, 2013; due to which the present respondent No.1-workman was not required to be continued in service. 4.1 Learned advocate for the appellants also harped Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act to try to submit that the termination of workman was not retrenchment and fell within the purview of said Section. He submitted that Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act provides that termination of service of a workman as a result of non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and workman on its expiry for such contract being terminated under stipulation would not amount to retrenchment. It was submitted that the termination of the respondent-workman was of such nature. 4.2 Questioning the findings of learned Single Judge, learned advocate for the appellants further submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that each of the Taluka Panchayats in any district is a separate legal entity and can be said to be different employer and that the different workman working under the different Panchayats could not be treated as one class and for the purpose of seniority. 4.3 Learned advocate for the appellants assailed the grant of 50% back wages that no back wages were required to be granted. He independently submitted that 50% back wages were granted for the span of nearly seven years even without work being done by the workman during the said period. It was also submitted that respondent No.1 workman had failed to establish that he was not gainfully engaged during the said period, to be entitled to any back wages. 4.4 On the other hand, learned advocate for respondent No.1 workman supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge confirming the judgment and award of the Labour Court. He submitted that appointment of respondent No.1 was in the year 2001 and he rendered continuous service till the year 2013. While terminating services at the end of such length of service, learned advocate submitted, that the Panchayat did not follow the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was submitted that the Labour Court, on the basis of evidence before it, recorded finding of non-compliance of the relevant provisions of the Act. While terminating services at the end of such length of service, learned advocate submitted, that the Panchayat did not follow the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was submitted that the Labour Court, on the basis of evidence before it, recorded finding of non-compliance of the relevant provisions of the Act. He emphasized that while on one hand letters were addressed to recommend the regularization of the workman by the Panchayat itself, on the another hand his services came to be illegally terminated. Learned advocate for respondent No.1 also invited attention of the Court that finding was recorded by the Labour Court regarding violation of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act also. 5. Having noticed the conspectus of basic facts and the rival case, it is undisputed fact that respondent-workman was engaged as Driver under the appellant Taluka Panchayat on 28th February, 2001. It is an admitted position flowing from the averments by the appellant-Panchayat in its petition that respondent No.1 workman was borne on 04th March, 1968 and was offered work in the month of January, 2001 by Godhra Taluka Panchayat. It was stated that engagement of respondent No.1 as daily-wager was upon retirement of a regular and permanent employee of the cadre of District Panchayat. 5.1 The workman having been so appointed, worked for twelve years and six months before his termination with effect from 11th July, 2013. In the Reference, issue before the Labour Court was whether the workman had put in continuous service as conceptualized under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and whether the termination of the respondent No.1 workman was in breach of or without following the mandatory provisions of the said Act. 5.2 The Labour Court recorded finding that the workman had rendered continuous service as contemplated under Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 25B of the Act contains the definition of continuous service. The concept of continuous service is linked to Section 25F of the Act which provides for the condition precedent to retrenchment to workman. The services of workman who has completed continuous service within the meaning of Section 25B could not be terminated without complying with the conditions of Section 25F and that these conditions are held to be mandatory. The concept of continuous service is linked to Section 25F of the Act which provides for the condition precedent to retrenchment to workman. The services of workman who has completed continuous service within the meaning of Section 25B could not be terminated without complying with the conditions of Section 25F and that these conditions are held to be mandatory. Not only that, the first party employer had failed to raise a specific plea in their written statement that services of the workman was not continuous in terms of Section 25B of the Act, it failed to lead any evidence to the contrary. There is an assertion by the workman in his statement of claim that during all the years beginning from his entry in service till he came to be terminated, he completed 240 days in each year. 5.3 Discussing and appreciating the evidence, Labour Court categorically observed that in the cross-examination, nothing could be culled out by the employer to rebut and demolish the said case of workman having completed 240 days in each year of service. It is observed that on the contrary, the first party employer admitted that the second party workman had put in 12 years of service as Driver under the Panchayat. 5.4 The workman had produced his pay-slips at Mark 8/6 to 8/21 to show continuous nature of his service, which documents were admitted by the witness of the employer. On the basis of the pay-slips, the Labour Court unequivocally found to record that it was shown therefrom that even on holidays, work was taken from the workman. It was also noticed by the Labour Court to mention that the first party itself repeatedly recommended for making the workman permanent. 5.5 The termination of the respondent workman was not based on any misconduct but undisputedly, it is in the nature of retrenchment from service. In this view, it was incumbent in law on part of the employer to observe, abide and comply with the provision of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 5.5 The termination of the respondent workman was not based on any misconduct but undisputedly, it is in the nature of retrenchment from service. In this view, it was incumbent in law on part of the employer to observe, abide and comply with the provision of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. When the evidence duly appreciated by the Labour Court was indicative and brought out the factum of workman’s 12 years service and further that such service was continuous with completion of 240 days in each year as recorded by the Labour Court, the employer was liable to follow the mandatory provisions in that regard, which having been not followed, the termination was rightly held to be illegal. 5.6 The submission on behalf of the appellant Panchayat to bring the termination of the respondent workman within the purview of Section was misconceived. Not only that the posting of permanent workman Mr.Machhi as Driver could not make the termination not retrenchment and would not displace the mandatory conditions of Section 25B to be adhered to, the Labour Court has found on the basis of the correct appreciation of evidence before it, as stated above, that the workman had served for long 12 years completing 240 days of service in each such year. The completions of such long continuous service is a factum established, the case could hardly fall to be the exception under Section 2(oo)(bb) to be able to legitimately contend that the employer would not be required to comply with the conditions precedent as per Section 25F of the Act. 5.7 The learned Single Judge has rightly noticed yet another categorical finding on part of the Labour Court about continuing employees junior to the respondent No.1 workman in service, while effecting termination of respondent’s service. it is irrefutably found and observed by the Labour Court that in the establishment of the first party employer – the Panchayat concerned, there were four other daily-rated drivers working along with the respondent No.1. All of them were junior to the respondent No.1. They were continued in service. In such facts and circumstances, the employer had committed breach of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act in dispensing with the services of the workman. The learned Single Judge had observed the fact of three junior Drivers still working with the concerned Taluka Panchayat is borne out from the record. 6. They were continued in service. In such facts and circumstances, the employer had committed breach of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act in dispensing with the services of the workman. The learned Single Judge had observed the fact of three junior Drivers still working with the concerned Taluka Panchayat is borne out from the record. 6. The case sought to be erected by learned advocate for the appellants that the cadre of Taluka Panchayat and District Panchayat were different, has no foundation nor it is germane when the breach of Section 25G is established with reference to junior employees retained. The next aspect put-forward on part of the appellant-Panchayat that due to the posting of the permanent Driver said named Shri Machhi in the Godhra Taluka Panchayat, services of respondent No.1 workman was liable to be terminated, is not a justification or answer to the termination effected without compliance of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, as found by the Labour Court and accepted by the learned Single Judge. Having examined the aspects, we confirm the finding of Labour Court. 6.1 The posting of said Shri Machhi could not be said to be an event bearing any nexus on account of which the termination of the respondent-workman could be justified. In any view, once the non-compliance of provision of Section 25F and breach of Section 25G of the Act are established, appellants could not raise a shield of posting of said Shri Machhi. It was an artificial correlation brought out to justify in vain the illegal termination of the workman. 6.2 Again, when such a transfer was made, the appellant was fully aware that the Respondent already had completed 12 years of his continuous service and was also recommended to be appointed on permanent posts along with others from the very district, which was undoubtedly declined by the State on 17th October, 2012, on the ground of resolution of Administrative Department dated 01st April, 2010 requiring such posts to be filled in by way of outsourcing. Nevertheless, his entitlement to be continued as the senior most driver of the District as also applicability of resolution of 17th October, 1988 and availability of its benefits on having completed more than 10 years could not have been overlooked nor could have been obliterated by such actions of inter-district transfer. Nevertheless, his entitlement to be continued as the senior most driver of the District as also applicability of resolution of 17th October, 1988 and availability of its benefits on having completed more than 10 years could not have been overlooked nor could have been obliterated by such actions of inter-district transfer. To urge that every appointment of driver-workman in Taluka Panchayat is a separate cadre having no connection with the district and therefore, respondent’s seniority amongst other workmen/ drivers in the district has no relevance when viewed in the background of requirement of labour laws and the pattern of approval by the District Development Officer, is not at all found acceptable. 6.3 An alternative averment was attempted in vain by learned advocate for the appellants that instead of reinstatement of the workman, the Court may consider to award lump sum compensation. Having given anxious consideration to the said plea with reference to the facts of the case, the findings recorded by the Labour Court based on the evidence and further having regard to the aspect that the termination is of the year 2013 and the workman is 52 years of age with number of years of service remaining, we do not think that this is a case where lump sum compensation could be awarded in lieu of relief of reinstatement. 6.4 While learned advocate for the appellants questioned the grant of 50% back wages also, the first party employer failed to lead any evidence to show that the workman was gainfully employed during the interregnum. Such was the burden required to be discharged by the first party employer in view of the precise averment of the workman in his statement of claim, remained undenied in the written statement of the employer, that after termination of service; the workman tried for service at several places but could not get any employment and that he remained unemployed even at the time of submitting the statement of claim. In wake of such state of pleadings and the evidence on the count of back wages, grant of 50% back wages to the workman could be said to be reasonable. Even otherwise, once the termination is held to be illegal, normal rule is that back wages has to follow which in its ultimate analysis is a discretionary relief to be granted by the Labour Court, and no error is committed by the Labour Court. 7. Even otherwise, once the termination is held to be illegal, normal rule is that back wages has to follow which in its ultimate analysis is a discretionary relief to be granted by the Labour Court, and no error is committed by the Labour Court. 7. The findings recorded by the Labour Court and confirmed by the learned Single Judge are just and proper. No perversity was noticed in the findings of the Labour Court. In recording the findings and allowing the Reference in terms of the judgment and award, it could not be said that any material evidence was ignored or the relevant evidence is misapplied. The findings do not suffer from any infirmity in law warranting any interference in the exercise of Letters Patent jurisdiction. The present Letters Patent Appeal stands meritless and the same is summarily dismissed. ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION In view of dismissal of the main Letters Patent Appeal, the present application for interim relief is of no consequence and the same does not survive and accordingly, the same is dismissed.