JUDGMENT : 1. 1.1 As the common questions of facts and law are involved in both these petitions and the award impugned is one and same in both the petitions, they are disposed off by this common judgment. Special Civil Application No.9547 of 2008 is filed by the petitioner - Gujarat State Land Development Corporation Limited inter alia challenging the award passed by the learned Labour Court, Rajkot in reference (LCR) No.357 of 1994 dated 15.05.2008, whereby the learned Labour Court, Rajkot has allowed the reference in favour of the respondent workman and awarded reinstatement with continuity and 25% back wages. Further the learned Labour Court, Rajkot has held that the action of the petitioner corporation of terminating the service with effect from 01.07.1994 is illegal. 1.2 Special Civil Application No.11754 of 2008 is filed by the workman challenging the same award impugned and prayed for full back wages. 2. Heard Learned Advocate:- 2.1 Learned Advocate for the petitioner corporation has submitted that the workman was appointed purely as temporary ad-hoc daily wager auto electrician initially for a period of one year i.e. from 01.07.1991 to 30.06.1992. It is submitted that at the time of giving approval to the said post it was clearly stated in the approval order by the higher authority that the said post is a daily wager post and it is based on the work with the corporation. Further, it was clearly mentioned in the approval order that the services of the workman will be terminated without any reason or any process, if there is no work with the corporation and further, after completion of the work of the corporation and/or after availability of regular employees, the services of the workman will be terminated. 2.2 The learned advocate for the petitioner corporation has submitted that the services of the workman were terminated with effect from 30.06.1994 as there was no work with the corporation and therefore, the competent authority did not continue the service of the workman. 2.3 The learned Advocate for the petitioner corporation has submitted that since corporation was making heavy losses, the State Government has taken a decision to close down the mechanical division of the entire corporation with effect from 29.04.2005. It is submitted that the Government of Gujarat has decided to minimize the administration and to close down the very division of the corporation. It is submitted that the Government of Gujarat has decided to minimize the administration and to close down the very division of the corporation. 2.4 The learned Advocate for the petitioner corporation has submitted that the respondent workman was appointed as purely temporary ad-hoc daily wager, auto electrician for period of one year only. It is submitted that his services were continued till 30.06.1994 on the same post and on the same condition and every time, the petitioner corporation has to take approval from the competent higher authority. It is submitted that the appointment of the respondent workman was seasonal and since there was no permanent employee available, it was till the completion of the work. 2.5 Learned Advocate for the petitioner corporation has submitted that since the appointment of the respondent workman was purely ad-hoc and for a fixed period, the provision of section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not apply as the question of retrenchment/compensation/notice does not arise. 2.6 Learned Advocate for the petitioner corporation has submitted that since the question of retrenchment notice, notice pay or any procedure for termination of services is not required as the respondent workman was appointed on purely temporary ad-hoc basis, Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not apply in the present case. 2.7 Learned Advocate for the petitioner corporation has submitted that the learned Labour Court has committed grave error in allowing the reference and directing the petitioner corporation to reinstate the respondent workman with continuity and 25% back wages. 2.8 It is submitted that the learned Labour Court has erred in not considering the fact that the Government of India has closed down the corporation with effect from the year 2005. The Government has totally close down the mechanical division of the entire corporation before the impugned award was passed. 2.9 The learned Advocate for the petitioner corporation has submitted that the learned Labour Court has erred in not considering the fact that the corporation was making heavy losses since several years and further that even the total strength of the staff was also reduced. 2.10 It is submitted that the impugned award be quashed and set aside by allowing the petition filed by the petitioner corporation. 3. 2.10 It is submitted that the impugned award be quashed and set aside by allowing the petition filed by the petitioner corporation. 3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner corporation has submitted that since the petitioner corporation is not working since long, it would be very difficult for the petitioner corporation to reinstate the respondent workman in services. It is submitted that since the petitioner was carrying heavy losses since several years, it would also be very difficult for the petitioner corporation to give continuity and back wages, as awarded by the learned Labour Court, to the respondent workman. 3.1 The learned advocate for the respondent workman, who is a petitioner of Special Civil Application No.11754 of 2008, has submitted that the workman has completed 240 days continuous service in the preceding twelve months with the corporation. 3.2 It is submitted that the corporation has terminated the services of the workman without any notice or notice pay. 3.3 It is submitted that the action of terminating the services of the workman of the petitioner corporation is in violation of the provisions of Section 25(F) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3.4 It is submitted that the corporation has continued the junior workman in the service and terminated the services of the respondent workman. 3.5 It is submitted that further, the corporation has given appointment to new workman in place of the respondent workman but did not continue the services of the respondent workman. 3.6 It is submitted that at the time of terminating the services of the respondent workman, the corporation had sufficient work and the corporation was giving appointment to another workman only with a view to violate the rights of the respondent workman. 3.7 It is submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Labour Court has erred in not awarding full back wages to the respondent workman which should be 100% back wages to be awarded to the respondent workman. 3.8 It is submitted that the impugned award passed by the learned Labour Court granting 20% of back wages to the respondent workman be quashed and set aside and full back wages be awarded to the respondent workman. 3.8 It is submitted that the impugned award passed by the learned Labour Court granting 20% of back wages to the respondent workman be quashed and set aside and full back wages be awarded to the respondent workman. 3.9 It is submitted that the respondent workman has preferred Special Civil Application 11754 of 2008 qua full back wages only since the Labour Court has granted reinstatement and continuity to the respondent workman vide impugned award. 4. I have heard learned Advocate for the respective parties. I have perused the impugned award passed by the learned Labour Court, Rajkot. I have gone through the averments made by the respective parties in their respective petitions. I have considered the submission canvassed by the learned Advocate for the petitioner corporation as well as the respondent workman. 4.1 It is an undisputed fact that the respondent workman was appointed initially for a period from 01.07.1991 to 30.06.1992 on purely ad-hoc temporary daily wager auto electrician by the approval of the competent higher authority of the corporation. 4.2 It is an undisputed fact that at the time of giving appointment, there was a condition that it is a temporary post and the services of the workman will be terminated if there is no work and or there will be regular appointment of the permanent employee. 4.3 It is also an undisputed fact that the services of the workman were continued from time to time till 30.06.1994 with the approval of the competent higher authority of the corporation. 4.4 It is also an undisputed fact that the petition corporation was making heavy losses since several years. 4.5 It is also an undisputed fact that the respondent workman has completed 240 days continuous service in the preceding period. It is also an undisputed fact that the Government of Gujarat has closed down the mechanical division and the entire corporation in the year 2005. 4.6 It is required to be noted that at this stage that the implementation of the award impugned passed by the learned Labour Court, Rajkot is practically not possible due to the reasons/undisputed facts noted hereinabove. 4.7 It is also an undisputed fact that at relevant point of time, total strength of staff was also reduced sufficiently, now the Corporation itself is closed down. 4.8 The workman has worked with the corporation with effect from 01.07.2021 to 30.06.1994. 4.7 It is also an undisputed fact that at relevant point of time, total strength of staff was also reduced sufficiently, now the Corporation itself is closed down. 4.8 The workman has worked with the corporation with effect from 01.07.2021 to 30.06.1994. Therefore, the workman worked with the corporation for about 3 years only. It is also required to be kept in mind the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of :- (i) Madhya Bharat Gramin Bank versus Panchamlal Yadav reported in AIROnline 2021 SC 336 = 2021 LabIC 3775 (ii) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited versus Bhurumal reported in (2014) 7 SCC 177 and (iii) Rajasthan Lalit Kala Academy versus Radhey Shyam reported in (2008) 13 SCC 248 while considering the present case for lump-sum compensation to be awarded to the workman, which would meet the ends of justice. 4.9 Further, in view of above undisputed facts, the ends of justice will meet if the lump-sum compensation of Rs.3 lakhs is granted to the workman, in view of the decision of this court dated 09.08.2021 passed in Special Civil Application No.16107 of 2018 in order to give quietus to the litigation in lieu of reinstatement with continuity and 25% back wages. 5. In view of the above the following order is passed. 5.1 The impugned award dated 15.05.2008 by the learned Labour Court, Rajkot in reference LCR No.357 of 1994 is modified to the extent that Gujarat State Land Development Corporation Limited is directed to pay lump-sum monetary compensation of Rs.3 lakhs to the workman - Mr.B.K. Koidia (in lieu of earlier order passed for the reinstatement with continuity of service as well as 25% back wages) within a period of 3 months from today. 5.2 Both these petitions are disposed of in above terms. 5.3 Rule is absolute to the above extent.