JUDGMENT : Bhargav D. Karia, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. I.G. Joshi for learned advocate Mr. Vyom Shah for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shrunjal Shah for the respondent State. 2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Award and Order dated 29th May, 2014 passed in Reference (LCA) No.1 of 2012 by the Labour Court, Amreli. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was serving on the post of driver with respondent no.1 since 02.07.2009 and was paid Rs. 179.80 per day as wages. 4. The services of the petitioner came to be terminated orally on 18.06.2011. The petitioner therefore, issued demand notice dated 19.09.2011. As the respondents did not reply to the same, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication before the Labour Court, Amreli being Reference (LCA) NO. 1 of 2012. 5. The petitioner filed his statement of claim at Exh.6 stating that he was working with respondent no.1 since 02.07.2009 on the post of driver and was paid salary of Rs. 179.80 per day and was illegally terminated by oral order dated 18.06.2011 without any fault on his part. It was stated by the workman that juniors to him were continued and he was not called at the time of appointment though he had requisite educational qualification for any post in the establishment. It was stated by him that at the time of termination, he was not given any notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation and was terminated without giving him any opportunity of hearing. The petitioner workman had therefore, prayed for reinstatement on his original post with back wages and ancillary benefits and also prayed for cost of Rs.3000/- for the Reference. 6. Respondents filed their written statement at Exh.7 denying the facts stated by the petitioner workman. It was stated that the petitioner was appointed on temporary, ad-hoc basis and as a daily wager driver and was called as and when his services were required. It was further submitted that the petitioner was given wages as per piece rate given by the Labour Commissioner and whenever voucher was produced, he was paid the wages and as per the said rate, petitioner was paid Rs. 149.30 till the month of May 2011 and after the said period, rate was Rs.179.90. It was further submitted that the petitioner was given wages as per piece rate given by the Labour Commissioner and whenever voucher was produced, he was paid the wages and as per the said rate, petitioner was paid Rs. 149.30 till the month of May 2011 and after the said period, rate was Rs.179.90. It was further submitted that nobody is appointed as driver in the establishment at present and hence there was no question of juniors being appointed for the said work. 7. Petitioner filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination vide Exh.27 and demand notice was produced at Exh.42 whereas affidavit of chief examination of Additional Assistant Engineer was produced at Exh.37. 8. The Labour Court, Amreli by the impugned Award granted compensation of Rs.50,000/- instead of reinstatement and back-wages and directed that the amount was to be paid by the respondents within a period of sixty days from the publication of award. 9. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 10. Learned advocate Mr. I.G. Joshi for the petitioner submitted that the impugned award is illegal, perverse and deserves to be quashed and set aside inasmuch as Labour Court having come to the conclusion that the petitioner has continuously worked for more than 240 days and employment was for more than one year, ought to have awarded reinstatement in lieu of compensation. 11. It was submitted that though the Labour Court came to the conclusion that respondents have violated the provisions contained in section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (For short “the Act”), Labour Court erred in not granting reinstatement to the petitioner in lieu of compensation. It was further submitted that the Labour Court ought to have appreciated that no opportunity of hearing as well as no disciplinary inquiry was conducted and petitioner was terminated orally and therefore, the impugned Award is required to be quashed and set aside. 12. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shrunjal Shah submitted that impugned award is just and proper and requires no interference by this Court. It was submitted that the petitioner was called for work as and when the service of the petitioner was required and on production of voucher by the petitioner he was paid the amount as per the services rendered by him at the rate fixed by the Labour Commissioner. 13. It was submitted that the petitioner was called for work as and when the service of the petitioner was required and on production of voucher by the petitioner he was paid the amount as per the services rendered by him at the rate fixed by the Labour Commissioner. 13. It was submitted that the service of the petitioner was temporary and ad-hoc and persons who were junior to the petitioner were not continued in service. 14. It was further submitted that as per the order passed by the Labour Court, cheque of Rs. 50,000/- was sent to the petitioner but the petitioner refused to accept the same and was returned by the postal department with endorsement of “Refuse”. 15. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the impugned award as well as the documents on record, it appears that Tribunal relying upon the decision in case of Bilimora Nagarpalika v. Jashuben Jashavantbhai Solanki reported in 2013(1)GLR 845 and after discussing the evidence at length held that the petitioner workman has proved that he has worked continuously for more than 240 days in a year and the burden of proving the continuous service is discharged by the workman. Labour Court thereafter placing reliance on decision in case of Devandra Singh and Municipal Corporation reported in 2011 LLR 785, held that the petitioner was illegally retrenched without following the due process as per section 25F of the Act. However Labour Court relying on the decision of this Court in case of Valimamad Jamalbhai Pipalvadia v. Deputy Executive Engineer & anr. reported in 2014 I CLR 792, came to the conclusion that interest of justice would be served if compensation of Rs. 50,000/- with 9% interest per annum is awarded instead of reinstatement and back-wages. 16. Thus it appears that the Labour Court materially erred in not granting the benefit of reinstatement, which in the opinion of this Court is unjustified, particularly when admittedly violation of Sec.25(F) is writ large as even found by the Labour Court. 17. The coordinate Bench of this Court (Coram : Hon’ble Mr. 16. Thus it appears that the Labour Court materially erred in not granting the benefit of reinstatement, which in the opinion of this Court is unjustified, particularly when admittedly violation of Sec.25(F) is writ large as even found by the Labour Court. 17. The coordinate Bench of this Court (Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Biren Vaishnav) in Special Civil Application No.1793 of 2019 vide judgment dated 23.08.2022 in somewhat similar award passed by the Labour Court, Godhra, held as under: “6 Facts on hand would indicate that in the opinion of this Court, the Labour Court materially erred in not granting the benefit of reinstatement on the ground of period of 12 years having gone by since the adjudication. As referred to hereinabove, what is evident is that initially the award was passed ex-parte in the year 2012 essentially because the respondents had failed to appear and adduce evidence before the Labour Court. The Labour Court, then had awarded reinstatement with 25% backwages. When the award passed ex-parte was set aside on 18.02.2014 for fresh consideration, the Labour Court by the award impugned herein, has awarded compensation which in the opinion of this Court is unjustified, particularly when admittedly violation of Sec.25(F) is writ large as even found by the Labour Court. 6.1 The Court is also emboldened to take the view in view of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No. 5899 of 2021 dated 13.01.2022, wherein, somewhat similar award passed by the Labour Court, Godhra, awarding compensation of Rs.35,000/- was under challenge. Of course, the policy of outsourcing was extensively discussed by the Co- ordinate Bench. The termination in the present case too, though not expressly stated was as a result of such policy having come into force. Paras 7 to 14 of the order read as under: “7. This Court has perused the written statement dated 23.09.2014 and Exh.20 i.e examination-in chief of the witness of respondent-state, which reveals that the respondent- State has specifically contended that since vide circular dated 10.02.2006 issued by the Finance Department, State Government, the appointments made on contractual basis were abolished, the petitioner-workman was terminated from service. This Court has also perused the deposition of the representative of the respondent- State, the same was recorded on 23.09.2015 below Exh.24. This Court has also perused the deposition of the representative of the respondent- State, the same was recorded on 23.09.2015 below Exh.24. It is admitted by the representative of the respondent-State that the petitioner -workman was terminated in view of the instructions issued by the State Government, without issuing any notice or notice pay. It is also stated that the work is still available with the respondent. 8. The aforesaid Circular dated 10.02.2006 and the subsequent Circular dated 02.04.2012 were subject matter of challenge in the writ petition being special Civil application No.7462 of 2012 and allied matters. The contractual employees like the present petitioner were terminated in view of the aforesaid policy, which resulted in filing of the aforesaid writ petitions. The aforesaid group of petitions were allowed vide judgement and order dated 21.12.2018. It was carried in appeal by the State by filing Letters Patent Appeal No.1155 of 2019. The said appeals were dismissed vide judgement and order dated 09.05.2019. The Coordinate Bench of this Court has recorded the prayers and has observed thus: “3 By way of these writ petitions under Articles 14,16,21,23 and 226 of the Constitution of India, by and large, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs: A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the Government Resolution dated 25.4.2012 directing the Government officers to terminate the services of Class-IV part-time employees from 31.5.2012 issued by respondent no. 3; B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to terminate the services of the petitioners from 31.5.2012 pursuant to the Government Resolutions dated 25.4.2012 and its parent government dated 10.2.2006 issued by respondent no. 3; C) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass a cease and desist order to permanently restrain the respondents from terminating the petitioners' service under Government Resolution dated 10.2.2006 and 25.4.2012 issued by the respondent no. 3; D) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no. 3 to give prospective effect to the Government Resolution dated 10.2.2006 issued by respondent no. 3; D) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no. 3 to give prospective effect to the Government Resolution dated 10.2.2006 issued by respondent no. 3 and further declare that the said Government Resolution cannot apply retrospectively to the petitioners who are appointed before 10.2.2006; E) Your Lordships may be pleased to declare the action of the respondents to terminate the services of the petitioners in an unfair, unjust and unreasonable manner being inconsistent and incompatible with Article 14,16,21 and 23 of the Constitution; F) In the alternative, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the cases of all the petitioners individually for regularizing their service in light of para 53 of the Uma Devi's case; G) Pending admission and final hearing of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the implementation and operation of the Government Resolution dated 25.4.2012 issued by the respondent no. 3 terminating the services of the petitioners on 31.5.2012; xxxxx 5 The Finance Department of the State Government on 10.2.2006 issued Government Resolution withdrawing the powers of all the departments to appoint and pay wages to the parttimers from the contingency fund. Further, it was decided that the work performed by the parttime employees to be given to the outsourcing agency. The object of the Government Resolution dated 10.2.2006 was to reduce the prospective huge financial burden arising out of regularizing part time employees in service. 6 Though such resolution was passed, however, the departments of Government authorities were in need of part-time employees and as the alternative arrangement of outsourcing was time consuming, Finance Department came with various Government Resolutions extending the time to keep the part-time employees in service. However, vide Government Resolution dated 25.4.2012 Finance Department gave final ultimatum to all the Government offices to terminate the service of class IV part-time employees on or before 31.5.2012. 7 The petitioners' services were to be terminated on or before 31.5.2012 and they were to be replaced by another set of ad hoc employees in the name of outsourcing. Apprehending such termination, the petitioners approached this Court by way of aforementioned petitions. Other similarly situated persons affected by the outsourcing policy of the Government also filed identical petitions before this Court which are being disposed of by this common judgment. Apprehending such termination, the petitioners approached this Court by way of aforementioned petitions. Other similarly situated persons affected by the outsourcing policy of the Government also filed identical petitions before this Court which are being disposed of by this common judgment. xxxx 32 As mentioned above, some of the petitioners are out of service after coming into force the Resolution of the State Government dated 31.5.2012. These petitioners were working along with their other counter part prior to 31.5.2012. Since number of Class IV employees of the State got affected because of the Resolution dated 31.5.2012, all the affected persons could not obtain the stay from the courts against their termination. There is no denning fact that all these petitioners are affected by the Resolutions of the State Government dated 25.4.2012 and 31.5.2012. They are to be treated at par with the employees who were lucky to get the stay against their termination from the courts. Accordingly, the relief granted by this Court in this judgment shall be extended to all the employees who are affected by the Resolutions of the State Government whether they are continued as outsource employees or are terminated in view of these resolutions.”. 9. From the aforenoted observations, it is manifest that the entire policy of the State Government introduced vide Government Resolutions dated 10.02.2006 and 25.04.2012 and the termination of contractual employees were subject matter of challenge before this Court. This Court has held that the persons, who were unable to obtain stay cannot be discriminated since similarly situated employees were continued and they are to be treated at par with the employees, who were lucky to get the stay against their termination from the Courts. Finally, it is observed that the relief granted by this Court in the judgment shall be extended to all the employees, who are affected by the Resolutions of the State Government whether they are continued as outsource employees or are terminated in view of these resolutions. Thus, in wake of the aforesaid directions, the petitioner, who is also victim of termination because of the unfair policy of the State Government, cannot be discriminated, and he is also required to be extended the same relief, which was extended by this Court to other similarly situated employees. 10. The aforesaid judgment has become final. Thus, in wake of the aforesaid directions, the petitioner, who is also victim of termination because of the unfair policy of the State Government, cannot be discriminated, and he is also required to be extended the same relief, which was extended by this Court to other similarly situated employees. 10. The aforesaid judgment has become final. Thus, since the circular, due to which the respondent-workman was terminated, has been set aside and all the employees, who were terminated in view of the said circular, are ordered to be reinstated by this Court, the award of the Labour Court requires to be modified. 11. There is another aspect in the matter with regard to termination, which is held to be in violation of Sections 25H of the I.D. Act. It is not in dispute that the work was available and as on today also, the work is available. Thus, the reinstatement cannot be denied to the petitioner. When similarly situated part time employees have been granted reinstatement in the aforementioned judgments by this court, it will be unjust not to grant reinstatement to the petitioner. 12. At this stage Mr. Dave has fairly suggested that if reinstatement with continuity of service is granted to the petitioner-workman, he will forgo the back wages. 13. In the above circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that the payment of compensation, in lieu of reinstatement, would be detrimental to the interest of the petitioner. 14. Under the circumstances, the impugned award passed by the Labour court, Godhra is misconceived to the extent of granting compensation. The respondent is directed to reinstate the workman in service with continuity of service. However, it is clarified that he will not be entitled to any back wages. The order, reinstating the petitioner workman, shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.” 7 Having therefore found that the Labour Court having positively held that there was violation of Sec.25(F) of the Act, for no fault of the petitioner, the Labour Court proceedings having been prolonged at the instance of the respondents, the petitioner could not have been then deprived of the benefits of reinstatement which is a normal course that ought to have been followed once violation of Sec.25(F) is otherwise proved. 8 In the present case, the respondents, even did not adduce any evidence, documentary and / or oral to oppose the claim of the petitioner. 9 Under the circumstances, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court, Godhra, is misconceived to the extent of granting compensation. The respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner- workman in service with continuity of service. However, it is clarified that she will not be entitled to any backwages. The order, reinstating the petitioner workman, shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 10 With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned award dated 26.10.2018 passed by the Labour Court, Godhra, in Reference (T) No. 42 of 2006 is modified to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute to the above extent.” 18. In facts of the present case also the Labour Court having positively held that there was violation of Sec.25(F) of the Act, for no fault of the petitioner and that the workman has worked continuously for more than 240 days in a year, the petitioner could not have been then deprived of the benefits of reinstatement which is a normal course that ought to have been followed once violation of Sec.25(F) is otherwise proved. 19. Under the circumstances, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court, Amreli, is misconceived to the extent of granting compensation. The respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner-workman in service with continuity of service. However, it is clarified that he will not be entitled to any backwages. The order, reinstating the petitioner workman, shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 20. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is partly allowed. The impugned award dated 29.05.2014 passed by the Labour Court, Amreli, in Reference (LCA) No. 1 of 2012 is modified to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute to the above extent.