JUDGMENT : M.K. THAKKER, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Ms. Khushbu Chhaya waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent. 2. The present petitions are filed being Special Civil Application No. 5241, 5242, 5243 and 5244 of 2021 by the Bhavnagar District Panchayat under article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for following reliefs: “(A) Be pleased to admit the present Special Civil Application. (B) Be pleased to allow this Special Civil Application by way of passing appropriate orders, writ, mandamus or writ or directions quashing and setting aside the order dated 5.1.21 passed by the Hon’ble Labour Court at Bhavnagar in Complaint Application No. 3/14 holding that the termination of respnt. from employment with effect from 23.7.07 was contrary to the provisions of Section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, therefore, the respnt. is entitled to reinstatement with continuity and 25% back wages with effect from 23.7.07 annexed as ANNEXURE-C in the interest of justice. (C) Pending the admission, final hearing and disposal of the present Special Civil Application be pleased to stay the implementation, execution & operation of the order dated 5.1.21 passed by the Hon’ble Labour Court at Bhavnagar in Complaint Application No. 3/14 holding that the termination of respnt. from employment with effect from 23.7.07 was contrary to the provisions of Section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, therefore, the respnt. is entitled to reinstatement with continuity and 25% back wages with effect from 23.7.07 annexed as ANNEXURE-C in the interest of justice. (D) Be pleased to call for the record of case bearing Complaint Application No. 3/14 from the Hon’ble Labour Court at Bhavnagar. (E) Be pleased to pass such other and further orders as the nature of the case may be required and the Hon’ble Court may deem thought fit to pass such order.” 3. Other petitions are filed by the workmen being Special Civil Application No. 12331, 18957, 12332, 12334, 12359 and 12333 of 2021 challenging the award passed by the learned labour court dated 23.07.2007 qua not granting the benefits of 100% back wages. As all the petitions are arising from the same award, this Court has heard all the matters together and passed a common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Special Civil Application No. 5241 of 2021 is taken for consideration. 4. As all the petitions are arising from the same award, this Court has heard all the matters together and passed a common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Special Civil Application No. 5241 of 2021 is taken for consideration. 4. Gist of the case is that the respondent herein was working as Hamal/Sweeper on fix salary of Rs. 675/- per month since more than 20 years. In the year 2003 reference was filed before the learned labour court at Bhavnagar praying to regularize the service and to grant consequential benefit. The said reference was filed through Maha Gujarat General Majdoor Panchayat. During the pendency of the reference, the service of the present respondents were terminated by the petitioner on 23.07.2007 and therefore, the aforesaid reference came to be withdrawn on 16.07.2014. Immediately thereafter, the complaint came to be filed under section 33(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the “IT Act”) being complaint ID No. 3 of 2014 alleging that without filing the approval application and seeking permission from the learned labour court, services were terminated during the pendency of the reference. Learned labour court has come to the conclusion that except two workmen namely Mr. Mehbub Kasambhai Pathan who is petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 18957 of 2021 and in cross petition No. 5241 of 2021 and Mr. Dipakbhai Dinubhai Hada who is petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 12332 of 2021 and in cross petition No. 5243 of 2021, has granted benefit of 25% back wages with a continuity of services. However, in two petitions i.e. of Mr. Mehbub Kasambhai Pathan and Mr. Dipakbhai Dinubhai Hada learned labour court in addition to granting the benefit of 25% back wages with continuity of services has passed an award for reinstatement which is subject matter of challenge by way of different petitions. 5. Heard learned advocate Mr. Munshaw for the petitioner and learned advocate Ms. Chhaya for the respondent. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw submits that the reference itself is barred by the principle of res-judicata as previously reference which was filed was withdrawn and thereafter, second reference was filed. It is further submitted that, so far as the contention with regard to the provisions of section 33(a) of the ID Act is concerned, same is meant only for the daily wagers. Munshaw submits that the reference itself is barred by the principle of res-judicata as previously reference which was filed was withdrawn and thereafter, second reference was filed. It is further submitted that, so far as the contention with regard to the provisions of section 33(a) of the ID Act is concerned, same is meant only for the daily wagers. However, learned court, ignoring the above aspect has passed the impugned order. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw further submits that learned labour court has committed error in not considering the delay, as though their services were put to an end in the year 2007, but the reference was filed after seven years i.e. in the year 2014. Learned labour court without considering the decision of Prabhakar vs. Joint Director Sericulture Department and Ors. 2015 Law Suit (SC) 1178 has passed the judgment and award and therefore, same is required to be interfered with and petition is required to be allowed. 8. On the other hand learned advocate Ms. Chhaya submits that the reference which was filed for regularization being No. 2 of 2006 was pending before the learned labour court for adjudication and prayer made in the said reference was to regularize the services. Learned advocate Ms. Chhaya submits that as during the pendency of the reference without seeking approval from the learned labour court, services were terminated, therefore the application was filed below mark 15/4 seeking permission to withdraw the complaint with a view to file appropriate complaint before the learned court. Aforesaid application was allowed and therefore, it cannot be said that the reference is barred by the resjudicata. Learned advocate Ms. Chhaya submits that as the workmen has already filed reference which was pending before the learned labour court and on withdrawing the same i.e. on 16.07.2014, immediately on 16.08.2014 the present reference was filed, therefore, the learned labour court has rightly awarded the reinstatement as well as the back wages to the respondent-workman. Learned advocate Ms. Chhaya submits that as most of the workmen have attained the age of superannuation, therefore, learned labour court has awarded 25% back wages with continuity of services in the cases where workmen has completed 60 years of age. 8.1. Learned advocate Ms. Learned advocate Ms. Chhaya submits that as most of the workmen have attained the age of superannuation, therefore, learned labour court has awarded 25% back wages with continuity of services in the cases where workmen has completed 60 years of age. 8.1. Learned advocate Ms. Chhaya submits that learned labour court after assigning detailed reasons has passed judgment and award and therefore, there is no need for interference and the petition is required to be dismissed as well as the petitions which are filed by the respondent-workmen claiming 100% back wages is also required to be allowed. Learned advocate Ms. Chhaya states that the reliefs which were granted in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 908 of 2023 wherein, lump sum compensation was awarded in lieu of the back wages and reinstatement, the similar relief can be granted herein also. 9. Considering the submission made by the learned advocate and the reasons assigned by the learned labour court, certain undisputed facts which are referred by the learned labour court are required to be considered first. The present respondent-workmen were working on a fix salary since more than 20 years, details of each workmen are stated herein-below: S. No. Name & Petition Number Service Period 1 Ramaben Hada SCA 12331/2021 19/02/1983 to 23/07/2007 (24 years) 2 Rasilaben Sisodiya SCA 12333/2021 15/06/1983 to 23/07/2007 (24 years) 3 Mehbubbhai Pathan SCA 18957/2021 Cross SCA 5241/2021 01/02/1989 to 23/07/2007 (18 years) 4 Arvindbhai Mavani SCA 12334/2021 Cross SCA 5242/2021 02/11/1982 to 23/07/2007 (25 years) 5 Dipakbhai Hada SCA 12332/2021 Cross SCA 5243/2021 07/02/1983 to 23/07/2007 (24 years) 6 Dipakbhai Hada SCA 12359/2021 Cross SCA 5244/2021 03/06/1983 to 07/02/1983 (24 years) 10. The reference was filed being No. 6 of 2003 claiming for regularization which was withdrawn on 16.07.2014 as their services were terminated on 23.07.2007. The application seeking permission to withdraw was filed wherein, it is stated that as their services were terminated with a view to file appropriate reference challenging the order of termination, the permission was granted to withdraw the reference being No. 6 of 2003. 11. It is also not disputed by the management that the respondent-workman has not completed 240 days as during the cross-examination they had admitted that from the date of joining they had served continuously up to 2007. 11. It is also not disputed by the management that the respondent-workman has not completed 240 days as during the cross-examination they had admitted that from the date of joining they had served continuously up to 2007. The only contention is that as per the circular dated 01.05.2007 their services were terminated as they had not been appointed after following due procedure of law. Even if that contention is accepted for the sake of acceptance then also it appears that all the workmen had completed more than 20 years of service and at that point of time no objections were raised with regard to the non possessing requisite qualification nor appointment without following due procedure. Therefore, it is not open for the petitioners to raise this contention after availing the service for more than 20 years. 12. This Court would like to render the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Gujarat Agriculture University vs. All Gujarat Kamdar Karmachari Union, (2009) 15 SCC 335 with regard to the contentions raised for non availability of remedy under section 33(A) of the ID Act to the employees who are serving on a part time basis. Relevant paragraph of the same is reproduced herein-below: “16. It is true that daily wagers are not the holders of a post but the expression ‘conditions of service’ occurring in Section 33(1)(a) is not restricted to the holders of post. The expression ‘conditions of service’ is of wide range and relates to the workmen who may be temporary, adhoc, daily rated, permanent, semi-permanent or otherwise. What Section-33 provides is that, inter alia, during the pendency of any proceeding before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute, the employer shall not in regard to the matter connected with the dispute, change conditions of service prejudicially to such workmen. We find no merit in the contention that since daily rated employers do not hold any post and, therefore, there are no conditions of service for such employees.” 13. We find no merit in the contention that since daily rated employers do not hold any post and, therefore, there are no conditions of service for such employees.” 13. Considering the above decision, this Court is of the view that the remedy under section 33(A) would not be limited for the daily wager employees only, but it would be available to the part-timers also, therefore, this Court did not find any infirmity qua the observation made by the learned labour court with regard to the remedy available under section 33(A) of the ID Act. 14. The next contention of the present respondent is that the reliefs which were granted by the Division Bench of this Court in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 908 of 2023, wherein, the lump sum compensation awarded in lieu of the back wages and reinstatement, is required to be granted herein also. On perusing the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court dated 18.04.2024 in above appeal, it transpires that those are the cases wherein, the workmen were appointed on daily wage basis. However, in the present case the workmen are part timers, therefore, same treatment cannot be given to the present respondent- workmen. 15. At this stage the reference of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Divisional Controller Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs. Kalawati Pandurang Fulzele rendered in Civil Application No. 463 of 2022 is required to be made wherein, the Apex Court has held as under: “3. Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has committed a grave error in ordering reinstatement of the respondent with back wages. It is submitted that the High Court has materially erred in observing and/or confirming the order passed by the Labour Court holding that there was a breach of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is submitted that the appointment of the respondent was on purely contractual basis and for a particular period and on completion of the contractual period, her services were put to end. It is submitted that the appointment of the respondent was on purely contractual basis and for a particular period and on completion of the contractual period, her services were put to end. It is therefore submitted that when she was serving as a part-timer on contractual basis, Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act shall not be applicable and therefore there is no question of breach of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act as held by the Labour Court and confirmed by the High Court. 6. It is true that as such all the three courts below (except the Industrial Court) held the termination of the respondent-workman in breach of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, the Labour Court ordered reinstatement with back wages. However, it is required to be noted that even as per the appointment order produced by the respondent herself, her appointment was on contractual basis at a fixed salary/honorarium of Rs. 500/- per month. Though, it is a case on behalf of the appellant that her appointment was a fixed term appointment, however, considering the appointment order, the appointment was till further orders. Be that it may, the fact remains that her appointment was on contractual basis and on a fixed salary/honorarium of Rs. 500/- per month. It also cannot be disputed that she worked approximately for four years as a sweeper. As such there were no specific averments/allegations in the complaint on any unfair labour practice. Even there was no specific finding recorded by the Labour Court that there was any unfair labour practice adopted by the MSRTC. The only finding recorded by the Labour Court was that the termination was in breach of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and considering the nature of appointment of the respondent namely as contractual appointment on a fixed salary/honorarium of Rs. 500/- per month and she worked for approximately four years, we are of the opinion that in lieu of reinstatement and back wages, if a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) is awarded, it will meet the ends of justice. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, when the appointment was purely on contractual basis and on a fixed salary/honorarium of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) is awarded, it will meet the ends of justice. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, when the appointment was purely on contractual basis and on a fixed salary/honorarium of Rs. 500/- per month, the order of reinstatement with back wages was not warranted and instead if the lumpsum compensation is awarded in lieu of reinstatement and back wages as observed hereinabove, it will meet the ends of justice.” 16. Considering the above decisions and in the background of facts of the present case, this Court is of the view that when the Apex Court has granted lump sum compensation to the part-timers/contractual appointees of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the length of service of four years, then the present respondent-workmen are also entitled for appropriate relief considering the length of service, which is more than 20 years. 17. In view of the above this Court deems it fit to pass the following orders: (a) Petitions filed by the employer i.e. Bhavnagar District Panchayat in Special Civil Application Nos. 5241, 5242, 5243 and 5244 of 2021 is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. (b) The petitions filed by the respondent-workmen being Special Civil Application Nos. 12331, 18957, 12332, 12334, 12359 and 12333 of 2021 is partly allowed and the lump sum compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- is awarded in lieu of the reinstatement and back wages alongwith continuity of services. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. (c) the amount so derived shall be paid to the present respondent-workmen within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which there shall be interest at the rate of 9% per annum.