ORDER : A.J. Desai, J. 1. By way of present appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellant herein – original petitioner has challenged an oral order dated 04.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the captioned writ petitions filed by the present appellant challenging the judgment and award dated 11.04.2017 by which the learned Labour Court, Junagadh directed the appellant herein to reinstate the workmen – respondents herein without back-wages. 2. The short facts emerging from the record of the case are as follows:- 2.1 That the appellant, which is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business / manufacture of viscose filament yarn, appointed the respondents – workmen during 1995 to 2000 as temporary employee, however without following due process, services of respondents – workmen were terminated in the year 2001. Therefore, references were raised by the workmen which were allowed on the ground that there is a breach of sections 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2.2 The said decision of the learned Labour Court was challenged by the appellant herein by way of filing captioned writ petitions, which came to be dismissed by the impugned oral order dated 04.04.2022. Hence, present Letters Patent Appeals. 3. Learned advocate Ms. Khushbu Chhaya appearing for the appellant would submit that the learned Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge committed error in entertaining the case of the workmen since the reference was raised after a period of 4 to 5 years. Learned advocate Ms. Chhaya would further submit that the services of the workmen came to be terminated in the year 2001 i.e. before 21 years and therefore, case of lump sum compensation ought to have been considered. She, therefore, would submit that present appeals be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. T.R. Mishra appearing for the respondents – workmen has vehemently opposed the present appeals and has supported the order passed by the learned Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. He would submit that the learned Single Judge, after considering the case in detail and relying upon the findings of the learned Labour Court, has rightly come to the conclusion that the services of the workmen were illegally terminated. He would submit that the learned Single Judge, after considering the case in detail and relying upon the findings of the learned Labour Court, has rightly come to the conclusion that the services of the workmen were illegally terminated. He would submit that the workmen are not at fault since the case which was filed at the instance of the appellant in the year 2006 came to be finally disposed of by the learned Labour Court only in the year 2017. He would submit that this cannot be the ground for granting lump sum compensation to the workmen. In support of his submission, learned advocate Mr. Mishra has relied upon a recent decision dated 23.09.2022 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja vs. Kutchh District Panchayat rendered in Civil Appeal No.6890/2022 and has requested to dismiss the present appeals. 5. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the order passed by the learned Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge after considering the record of the case has observed in paragraph Nos.7 to 14 as under : “7. From the evidence on record of the workman, it appears that the Labour Court has held according to the statement of the workman of this case, the employer-company has made his appointment on 12/09/1995. Thereafter, he was ordered to perform his duty as conner cum reeler in the Textile Department. Moreover, he has performed duty continuously from 12/09/1995 to 15/12001. The employer-company has retrenched him from service on 15/11/2001. While retrenching him, the respondent has not paid him notice, notice pay or unemployment compensation. In this case, considering the aforesaid statement of the applicant, it has been stated that continuous duty has been performed from 12/09/1995 to 15/11/2001 and considering Section-25(2)(A) of the Industrial Dispute Act, it is the rule of the Act that, from the date of retrenching the workman, the workman must have completed 240 days within previous 12 months. Considering the same, if the answer whether the workman has worked for 240 days in the previous 12 months prior to the date of release or not, is affirmative. The workman's service should be considered continuous for 1 year. Considering the same, if the answer whether the workman has worked for 240 days in the previous 12 months prior to the date of release or not, is affirmative. The workman's service should be considered continuous for 1 year. The workman, in this case, has stated the above facts in the deposition on oath vide Exh.-29 in support of the statement of demand. 8. It also appears that as per the statement of the workman, the work he was engaged in, is still going on in the respondent institution. When he was retrenched from his service, his junior was continued on service and he has been relieved from his duty illegally. Moreover, after retrenching him from his duties, the respondent has also carried out other new recruitment for the said post but he was not called to service at that time. While retrenching him, his junior employees were continued in service and thus violated section-25(G)(H) of the I.D. Act. 8.1 Considering the cross-examination of Rajesh Jayantilal Sanghvi, witness of the respondent, vide Exh-131, he has accepted that the applicant was working in the Textile department. Moreover, he has also accepted that the applicant had been working in the Textile department from the date of joining, till he was retrenched. Further, he has accepted that the Textile department is functioning as of today. He has also accepted that other employees work at the Textile department. 8.2 Moreover, upon considering the cross-examination of the witness Priyadarshi Revatdan Gadhvi by the Ld. Advocate of the applicant, vide Exh-134 in this case, he has accepted that the department wherein the applicant was working, is functioning in the company as of today. He has also accepted that the applicant was working in the Textile department lastly. He has denied that after retrenching the applicant, other people have been recruited in the Textile department. He has stated that he does not know as to how many people were working in the Textile department in the year 2001, when the applicant was discharged. He also does not know as to how many workmen were there in the Textile department and as to how many of them were retrenched from Textile department in the year 2001. He knows that 120 workmen are working in the Textile department as of now. He also does not know as to how many workmen were there in the Textile department and as to how many of them were retrenched from Textile department in the year 2001. He knows that 120 workmen are working in the Textile department as of now. Moreover, he has accepted that the record is available with the company as to how many workmen were working in the Textile department in the year 2001 and how many of them were retrenched. He stated that he was ready to produce the record of the aforesaid details. Moreover, he has accepted that the seniority list of casual workmen is prepared and maintained in the company. 9. With regard to back wages, it is held that A seniority list is maintained to indicate as to which worker joined the company first. In addition, in reply to the question as to whether worker is retrenched from the company after taking the seniority list maintained in the company into consideration or not?, it is stated that he has been retrenched as his services was not required. Thus, in view of the statement of the aforesaid witness of respondent, after retrenching the present applicant, his colleague and subsequent appointed workers are still employed at the present date. Moreover, the applicant has not been called to the job, despite the fact that the work he was doing in the company is still being done after the retrenchment of the applicant. Considering the evidence on the record that the work being carried out by the applicant is being carried out by the other persons in the textile department and considering the statement that the seniority list of casual workers in the company is maintained and the applicant is retrenched without taking the seniority list into consideration and he is retrenched as his services was not required. In this matter, the respondent witness of Exhibit-131 has stated in his cross examination that the record as to how many workers were serving in the textile department in the year 2001 and how many of them have been retrenched, is available with the company and he is ready to produce the same. Despite that, no such record is produced in this case. Moreover, a seniority list is maintained in the respondent organization, despite that no such seniority list has been produced by the respondent organization. Despite that, no such record is produced in this case. Moreover, a seniority list is maintained in the respondent organization, despite that no such seniority list has been produced by the respondent organization. Therefore, this court has reason to assume against the respondent organization. Considering the same and the documents produced on the record, it is proved that the respondent organization has violated Section-25(g) and 25(h) of Industrial Dispute Act. 10. The Labour Court has held that at the time of granting or rejecting Back Wages, aspects such as the Method of Selection of Workman, his Designation, Type of Service, Tenure of Service, Age, necessary Qualification, possibility to get such job, efforts made to get the job – such points should be taken into consideration. Considering the evidences on record of this case, the Applicant has been retrenched on 15/11/2001 by Oral Order. The Applicant has submitted / filed the present Reference in the year – 2006, means after delay of 5 years. At this stage, the Hon'ble Court has the discretionary power to pass the order for back-wages. 11. On analyzing the evidences on record produced in this case, the burden to prove lies on the workman as to what efforts he has made to get the job, at which place, name of that post, proof of the applications done to get the job as well as if the job is denied then on the basis of such documentary evidences, he made his best efforts to get the job elsewhere after the Workman was retrenched by the respondent Institute on 15/11/2001 by Oral Order. But in the present case, the Workman has neither given any statement at all regarding this fact nor he has proved it by producing supporting documentary evidences. Hence, considering the principles established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, the applicant does not become entitled for the Back Wages automatically. 12. The contention is raised by learned Advocate for the employer with regard to grant of lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement on the ground of there being no breach of Section 25F. For this, reliance is placed on decision of the Supreme Court in case of Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kalawati Pandurang Fulzele in Civil Appeal No.463 of 2022 dated 03.01.2022. For this, reliance is placed on decision of the Supreme Court in case of Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kalawati Pandurang Fulzele in Civil Appeal No.463 of 2022 dated 03.01.2022. However, in this judgment, the Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the High Court in ordering reinstatement on account of breach of Sections 25F and 25G. It was only considering the facts of the case that compensation was ordered. 13. Insofar as objection to the order of continuity of service, the Court may rely upon an unreported judgment of the Apex Court in case of Nandkishore Sharavan Ahirrao Vs. Kosan Industries (P) Ltd. in Civil Appeal Nos.201-202 of 2020 dated 10.01.2020, wherein it is observed that continuity in service would follow as a matter of law on order of reinstatement. 14. The Court also takes into consideration that after the order of termination in the year 2001, the workman has raised a dispute in 2006, after a period of 4/5 years. It is also reported that the workman has been reinstated and is doing the service with the employer.” 6. Considering the above factual aspect as well as the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja (Supra), we are of the opinion that present appeals are devoid of any merit and are, hence, dismissed. However, the appellant shall comply with the award passed by the learned Labour Court, Junagadh within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the present order. In view of dismissal of Letters Patent Appeals, Civil Applications for stay also stand dismissed accordingly.