ORDER : 1. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is at the instance of an unsuccessful writ applicant of a writ application and is directed against the judgment and order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 14th November, 2019 in the Special Civil Application No. 8132 of 2018, by which, the learned Single Judge rejected the writ application filed by the appellant herein thereby affirming the award passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot. 2. The facts, giving rise to this appeal, may be summarized as under. 2.1 The respondent workman was appointed by the appellant as a daily wage driver at Aatkkot, District Rajkot with effect from 12th May, 1998. As his services came to be terminated all of a sudden, he approached the Labour Court at Rajkot by filing the Reference (LCR) No. 81 of 2004. The said reference was allowed, directing the appellant herein to reinstate the respondent without back wages. The appellant herein, being dissatisfied with the award passed by the Labour Court, challenged the same by filing the Special Civil Application No. 8132 of 2018 in this Court. The learned Single Judge of this Court rejected the writ application vide the judgment and order dated 14th November, 2019 holding as under: “6. According to learned advocate for the respondent, the respondent has worked with the petitioners for more than 8 years and the new vehicle has also come with a new driver and the respondent has not been offered the very work. There is complete breach of Section 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and therefore also, the Court below was not in error in holding such breach. He has also further submitted that the evidence which has been adduced on record by the respondent, clearly indicates that there is no abandonment of work on the part of the respondent. He has also discussed at length, the notice given to the respondent and also the oral as well as documentary evidence. 7. According to the petitioner, the respondent does not fall within the definition of workman and the petitioner is not an industry also. It is further his say that a serious error has been committed by the Court below ignoring the valid material. The allocation of new vehicle and the work of the respondent as a driver was without following the due procedure of Recruitment Rules. It is further his say that a serious error has been committed by the Court below ignoring the valid material. The allocation of new vehicle and the work of the respondent as a driver was without following the due procedure of Recruitment Rules. The appointment was purely temporary, ad-hoc and on daily waged base. No recruitment has been done and the respondent continued to work for some time but, due to administrative exigency, when he was called, he chose not to join and he abandoned the work on his own. Before 06.09.2003, he was not in touch for more than seven months. It is also the say that breach of Section 25(H) has not happened. The Primary Health Centre is in the rural area and the Medical Officer is supposed to visit the surrounding village to treat the patient in a mobile surveillance. 8. From the pleadings and chronology of the findings as also from the judgment and award of the Labour Court, it can be culled out that the respondent started working as a driver from 12.05.1998, he was getting Rs. 108/- wages every day and on 08.09.2003 he was retrenched from the services without payment of any notice pay or compensation. He continued to do the sundry work thereafter. 9. This Court notices that admittedly, his services were not continued. The case of the petitioners is that the present respondent has abandoned the work and thereafter, the notice was issued on 01.03.2004, which he refused. The Court below has noticed the evidence which has been adduced, more particularly, of one Dr. Sunil Satyanarayan Chaudhry. According to Dr. Sunil Chaudhary, the person worked for more than five years. The nature of work which was performed by the respondent still continues and the requirement for the person has not diminished. In his deposition he has agreed that there are other persons from whom the work of the driver has been taken, after the present respondent. The Salary / Wage Register maintained in the petitioner's office indicated engaging other persons without offering the present respondent. This cumulatively led the Court to opine that there was a breach of Section 25(H) of the ID Act. In fact, with no seniority list having come on record, breach of both Sections 25(G) and 25(H) could be made out. The Salary / Wage Register maintained in the petitioner's office indicated engaging other persons without offering the present respondent. This cumulatively led the Court to opine that there was a breach of Section 25(H) of the ID Act. In fact, with no seniority list having come on record, breach of both Sections 25(G) and 25(H) could be made out. The Court concerned merely noticed the breach of provision of Section 25(H) and not Section 25(G) of the ID Act. 10. The provisions of Sections 25(G) and 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, read as follows:- “25-G. Procedure of retrenchment - Where any workman in an industrial establishment who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman. 25-H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen - Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer proposes to take into his employ any persons, he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity [to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for reemployment and such retrenched workmen] who offer themselves for reemployment shall have preference over other persons.” 11. This Court has taken note of the decision in case of Dhoraji Municipality vs. Vadher Vasantbhai Sajanbhai rendered in Special Civil Application No. 14768 of 2010. In absence of maintenance of seniority list, breach of Sections 25(G) and 25(H) has clearly emerged which would render non proof of Section 25(F) insignificantly.” 2.2 Being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant is here before this Court with the present appeal. 3. Mr. Munshaw, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge committed an error in rejecting the writ application and thereby affirming the award passed by the Labour Court. He would submit that the respondent was offered appointment as a daily wage driver in 1998. However, he abandoned the work with effect from 6th September, 2003 on his free will and volition. Mr. He would submit that the respondent was offered appointment as a daily wage driver in 1998. However, he abandoned the work with effect from 6th September, 2003 on his free will and volition. Mr. Munshaw would submit that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated an important question of law that the award passed by the Labour Court is contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Mr. Munshaw would submit that the learned Single Judge committed a serious error in holding that the termination of the workman is in violation of the provisions of Section 25F and 25H respectively of the Act, 1947. 4. Mr. Munshaw vehemently submitted that even otherwise the provisions of Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Act, 1947 are attracted. 5. In the last, Mr. Munshaw submitted that no case for reinstatement could be said to have been made out by the workman, and at the most, this Court may consider passing appropriate order of monetary compensation. 6. In such circumstances, Mr. Munshaw prays that there being merit in his appeal, the same be allowed and the impugned judgment and order be set aside and the Special Civil Application No. 8132 of 2018 be allowed. 7. Mr. Munshaw, in support of his submissions, referred to above, has placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) The decision of this Court in the case of District Development Officer and Others vs. Jitendrakumar Jivram Dhandhia and Another, Special Civil Application No. 2354 of 2007, decided on 08.09.2016. (ii) The decision of this Court in the case of Parmar Bhailalbhai Dudabhai vs. District Panchayat and Another, Special Civil Application No. 10785 of 2014, decided on 06.02.2015. (iii) The decision of this Court in the case of Rameshbhai Jesangbhai Solanki vs. Medical Officer and Another, Special Civil Application No. 4144 of 2011, decided on 28.04.2016. 8. On the other hand, this appeal has been vehemently opposed by Mr. G.K. Rathod, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent workman. Mr. Rathod would submit that no error, not to speak of any error of law, could be said to have been committed by the learned Single Judge in rejecting the writ application and thereby affirming the award passed by the Labour Court. Mr. G.K. Rathod, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent workman. Mr. Rathod would submit that no error, not to speak of any error of law, could be said to have been committed by the learned Single Judge in rejecting the writ application and thereby affirming the award passed by the Labour Court. Mr. Rathod would submit that the Labour Court has recorded a finding of fact that the termination of the workman was in breach of Sections 25F and 25H respectively of the Act, 1947. Such finding has been further affirmed by the learned Single Judge. In such circumstances, Mr. Rathod would submit that this Court may not disturb the concurrent findings as regards the violation of the provisions of the Act, 1947 in this appeal. 9. Mr. Rathod, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Director of Education and Others, AIR 2016 SC 1855 . 10. In such circumstances, referred to above, Mr. Rathod prays that there being no merit in this appeal, the same may be dismissed. 11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our consideration is whether the learned Single Judge committed any error in passing the impugned judgment. 12. It appears from the materials on record that the learned Single Judge took cognizance of the following facts: (i) The respondent workman started working as a driver from 12th May, 1998 and was being paid Rs. 108/- towards wages per day. (ii) On 8th September, 2003, the workman was retrenched from the services without any notice pay or compensation. (iii) The learned Single Judge has recorded a finding that the defense of the appellant that the workman abandoned the work is not established from the materials on record. (iv) The learned Single Judge looked into the oral evidence of one Dr. Sunil Satyanarayan Chaudhary recorded by the Labour Court. Dr. Chaudhary deposed that the workman worked for more than five years. He also deposed that the nature of work which was performed by the respondent still continued and the requirement for the person had not diminished. He also deposed that the work was being taken from other persons. Sunil Satyanarayan Chaudhary recorded by the Labour Court. Dr. Chaudhary deposed that the workman worked for more than five years. He also deposed that the nature of work which was performed by the respondent still continued and the requirement for the person had not diminished. He also deposed that the work was being taken from other persons. (v) The learned Single Judge, having regard to the above, recorded a finding that there was a breach of Section 25H of the Act, 1947. The learned Single Judge also recorded a finding that with no seniority list having come on record, the breach of both the sections, i.e. Sections 25(G) and 25(H) respectively of the Act could be made out. (vi) The learned Single Judge has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Dhoraji Municipality vs. Vadher Vasantbhai Sanjanbhai rendered in the Special Civil Application No. 14768 of 2010, wherein this Court has taken the view that in the absence of maintenance of the seniority list, the breach of Sections 25(G) and 25(H) of the Act would clearly emerge and would render non-proof of Section 25F insignificantly. 13. If the learned Single Judge, having regard to the above, thought fit not to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court and rejected the writ application filed by the appellant herein, then in our opinion, no error much less an error of law could be said to have been committed by the learned Single Judge. We do not find any material infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, warranting interference in the present appeal. 14. The spirit and scheme of the ID Act was discussed by a Seven-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. A. Rajappa and Others, MANU/SC/0257/1978 : (1978) 2 SCC 213 as under: “To sum up, the personality of the whole statute, be it remembered, has a welfare basis, it being a beneficial legislation which protects Labour, promotes their contentment and regulates situations of crisis and tension where production may be imperiled by untenable strikes and blackmail lock- outs. The mechanism of the Act is geared to conferment of regulated benefits to workmen and resolution, according to a sympathetic rule of law, of the conflicts, actual or potential, between managements and workmen. The mechanism of the Act is geared to conferment of regulated benefits to workmen and resolution, according to a sympathetic rule of law, of the conflicts, actual or potential, between managements and workmen. Its goal is amelioration of the conditions of workers, tempered by a practical sense of peaceful co-existence, to the benefit of both-not a neutral position but restraints on laissez faire and concern for the welfare of the weaker lot. Empathy with the statute is necessary to understand not merely its spirit, but also its sense.” (Emphasis laid by this Court) 15. It is in this context that any dispute regarding retrenchment of a workman under the ID Act needs to be appreciated. 16. None of the three orders passed by this Court, upon which reliance has been placed by Mr. Munshaw, are helpful to him in any manner. All the three orders are in the facts of those cases. 17. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 18. In view of the order passed in the main matter, the civil application also does not survive and is disposed of accordingly.