ORDER : PRANAV TRIVEDI, J. 1. The present Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent are filed assailing the correctness and validity of a common order dated 29.09.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge. Since all the writ petitions were disposed of by way of common order and the issue is common, we propose to hear all the Letters Patent Appeals together for adjudication. 2. As far as Special Civil Applications No.2933/2017 to 2942/2017 are concerned, they were preferred by the respondents – original petitioners seeking directions to quash and set aside the impugned award passed by the Labour Court, Surendranagar in Reference (LCS) No.3 of 2009. It was further prayed to quash the reinstatement with 25% back-wages, which was granted by the Labour Court. The learned Single Judge, by way of a common order dated 29.09.2017, had quashed and set aside the granting of reinstatement to workmen along with 25% back-wages. Being aggrieved by such order, seven workmen have preferred Letters Patent Appeals No.7 of 2018 to 13 of 2018. 3. As far as Letters Patent Appeals in Special Civil Applications No. 15362/2017, 15364/2017 to 15367/2017 and 15369/2017 are concerned, the writ petitions were preferred by appellants – original petitioners praying for quashing and setting aside the award passed by the Labour Court in Reference (LCS) No.3 of 2009 wherein, only 25% back-wages were granted. It was further prayed to grant full back-wages pursuant to grant of reinstatement. Since the learned Single Judge had quashed and set aside the order of reinstatement itself, the prayers of workmen for considering full back-wages were rejected automatically. Resultantly, the writ petitions were dismissed. It is these set of petitions, which is challenged by the seven workmen in this group of appeals. 4. Since both sets of appeals have been preferred by the workmen, we propose to take all the appeals together to understand the factual matrix as well as for adjudication. 5. The factual matrix which has led to filing of writ petitions was that the appellants workmen were appointed in the respondent company which was registered under the provisions of the Companies Act. It was the case of the workmen that they were serving as full time employees. 5. The factual matrix which has led to filing of writ petitions was that the appellants workmen were appointed in the respondent company which was registered under the provisions of the Companies Act. It was the case of the workmen that they were serving as full time employees. It was the case of the workmen that they were terminated without following due procedure of law in violation of provisions of Sections 25(F), 25(G) and 25(H) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), whereas it was the case of the company that one of the labourers had committed an offence of theft, whereby some bags of cement had been stolen in the night shift from the factory. That resulted into lodging of a complaint being C.R.No.-I-75 of 2008 before the Muli Police Station. Pursuant to the investigation, five labourers were arrested. To protect those five labourers, some other labourers, including the appellants, went on strike and adopted pressure tactic upon the establishment. 6. Both the rival contentions of workmen and employer resulted into a dispute being raised before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour on 08.08.2008. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour gave notice. The workmen replied to the notice and the grievance culminated into the dispute being referred to the Labour Court. Pursuant to filing of reference, the workmen filed a statement of claim and the employer filed its written statement. By way of a common award, the Labour Court held that there was a breach of provisions of Sections 25(F) and 25(G) of the Act and thereby directed reinstatement with continuity and 25% back-wages. The respondent company aggrieved by such order, preferred writ petitions challenging the reinstatement and 25% back-wages whereas, workmen preferred writ petitions challenging non-granting of full back- wages. Both sets of petitions were disposed of by quashing and setting aside the reinstatement itself. Pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, some of the workmen had settled with the company. Out of those workmen, seven workmen have filed two sets of appeals, wherein one set challenges the quashment of reinstatement and other set challenges non-granting of full back-wages. 7. We have heard Mr. Manan K. Paneri, learned advocate for the appellants - workmen and Mr. Yogen N. Pandya, learned advocate for the respondent – company. 8. Mr. Out of those workmen, seven workmen have filed two sets of appeals, wherein one set challenges the quashment of reinstatement and other set challenges non-granting of full back-wages. 7. We have heard Mr. Manan K. Paneri, learned advocate for the appellants - workmen and Mr. Yogen N. Pandya, learned advocate for the respondent – company. 8. Mr. Manan K. Paneri, learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that the learned Single Judge proceeded on the fact that the penalty for the illegal strike was initiated by the workmen, whereas there was no evidence on record produced by the company with regard to the demand of the workmen or the strike. It is further submitted by Mr. Paneri, learned advocate that there was breach of Sections 25(G) and 25(H) of the Act and the termination of workmen was totally illegal. Mr. Paneri, learned advocate has further submitted that there was no evidence on record to the effect that 13 workmen have refused to report on duty. In absence of production of Register, Salary Register, Identity Card Issue Register, Leave Card Register etc. by the employer company, the Labour Court has rightly held that the workmen have been terminated and they have not left job voluntarily. In wake of such submission, Mr. Paneri, learned advocate has requested the Court to allow the appeals and quash and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Yogen N. Pandya, learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly considered the fact that there was a criminal complaint filed by the respondent company and there was illegal strike by the workmen for which the respondent company had suffered huge financial loss and therefore, the Labour Court had granted reinstatement after not considering proper evidence. It was further argued by Mr. Pandya, learned advocate that on one hand there was finding by Labour Court that the respondent No.1 had worked at other place and on the other hand, the Labour Court had granted continuity of service. This finding of Labour Court was clear error of law, which has been corrected by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge was just and proper. It was argued by Mr. This finding of Labour Court was clear error of law, which has been corrected by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge was just and proper. It was argued by Mr. Pandya, learned advocate that it were the respondents workmen who refused to work despite a tender that work to be completed within the stipulated time. The respondent workmen had abandoned the job on their own. Time was essence of the contract. Therefore, to complete the tender work, the respondent establishment had no option but to engage other labourers. Therefore, when the workmen had refused to work, the Labour Court was not right in coming to the conclusion that there was a breach of Sections 25(F), 25(G) and 25(H) of the Act. When such observations were corrected by the learned Single Judge, the order passed by the learned Single Judge was just and proper. 10. After considering the arguments canvassed by learned advocates for both the parties, the short point for consideration is whether the workmen were wrongfully terminated or if there was a deliberate decision made by the workmen not to rejoin pursuant to the strike. If the evidence on record is to be perused, it clearly indicates that on 06.10.2008, the company had written a letter to the Union to call off the illegal strike. Further, it was also informed to all the workmen that they will have to rejoined from 10.10.2008. The fact that the workmen had not rejoin is uncontroverted from the averments made in examination-in-chief of witness of the company. Such contents of examination-in-chief has gone completely uncontroverted. Therefore, there was no doubt on the factual aspect that workmen had not rejoined after the strike. It has further to be noted that merely because the workmen were not given penalty for going on strike and the provisions of Section 26 of the Act were not followed to give penalty to the workmen, it cannot be interfered that the strike had not happened or the workmen were terminated illegally. Therefore, in our considered opinion it is not in dispute that the workmen had deliberately not joined pursuant to the strike and therefore, the observations made by the Labour Court were bad in law. In view of the same, we would like to reproduce the observations made by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, in our considered opinion it is not in dispute that the workmen had deliberately not joined pursuant to the strike and therefore, the observations made by the Labour Court were bad in law. In view of the same, we would like to reproduce the observations made by the learned Single Judge. Paragraphs 6.1 to 6.4 read as under:- “6.1 On 24.07.2008, theft of Government Property was noticed by the employer, which led to filing of FIR with the Muli Police Station, District : Surendranagar. During the course of investigation, the accused were found to be from amongst the workmen only. It led to unrest and strike notice was given by the Union. 6.2 The employer has maintained all throughout, including in his written reply dated 18.08.2008 that the employer has not terminated any workmen, on the contrary it is the workmen who have proceeded on strike. 6.3 Most of the workmen had reported for duty, but these 13 workmen had refused to report for duty. There is material on record to indicate that, there was insistence by these workmen, that even the police complaint filed by the employer be withdrawn. The employer refused to withdraw the police complaint and these workmen refused to resume duty. It is this event, which was alleged to be illegal termination, which the Labour Court erroneously accepted. This Court has taken into consideration the contents of the FIR and the reply of the employer to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour at Surendranagar on 18.08.2008. On the face of this material on record, the Labour Court could not have come to the conclusion that this was the case of termination. 6.4 It is not that all the workmen were before the Labour Court. Most of the workmen had reported for duty. This Court finds that the conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court that this was the case of termination of the workmen is erroneous and the same needs to be quashed and set aside. It is found that the say of the employer that it was an illegal demand of the workmen to withdraw the police complaint of theft and having not acceded to it, few of the workmen did not report for duty and the same could not be termed to be illegal termination. The impugned awards are unsustainable and the same need to be quashed and set aside.” 11. The impugned awards are unsustainable and the same need to be quashed and set aside.” 11. In view of the above, we are in complete agreement with the observations made by the learned Single Judge. All the sets the Letters Patent Appeals preferred by the workmen being devoid of merit, are required to be dismissed. Accordingly, Letters Patent Appeals stand dismissed. No order as to cost. 12. In view of the order passed in main matters, connected Civil Applications stand disposed of accordingly.