JUDGMENT : M. K. Thakker, J. 1. This petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, labour court No.4, Vadodara in Miscellaneous Application No.23 of 2018 (In Reference Case No.289 of 2003) dated 27.08.2021 whereby, the application preferred by the present petitioner under Rule 26(a) of the ID Act came to be rejected and also challenging the judgment and award dated 28.09.2017 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, learned Court No.4, Vadodara in reference No.289 of 2003 whereby, the directions were issued to reinstate the respondent-workman without back wages and with continuity of service. 2. It is the case of the present petitioner that respondent herein, has filed the reference before the learned labour court, Vadodara being reference No.289 of 2003 claiming that he was appointed as a Driver on daily wages and in the month of March, 2002 due to Godhra train incident of communal riots, the respondent came to be arrested by the police on 27.04.2002 and thereafter, released on bail on 03.07.2002. 3. On approaching to the petitioner for resuming the duty on 04.07.2002 a show cause notice was served to the present respondent which was replied by the present respondent and thereafter, service came to be terminated by the present petitioner-corporation on 04.07.2002. On raising the Industrial Disputes before the learned labour court praying to reinstate with full back wages and continuity of services, learned labour court has awarded Rs.65000/- lump-sum compensation. In view of the reinstatement alongwith back wages. Challenging the above order, the petition came to be filed before this Court being SCA No.1592 of 2014 wherein, with the consent of both the parties, this Court has remanded back the matter to the learned labour court vide order dated 16.12.2016 with a direction to conclude the proceedings preferably on or before 30.09.2017. On remanding back the matter, learned court had issued Notice to both the parties and they appeared, wherein, the workman has filed the examination-in-chief below Exh.30, however, the petitioner-corporation did not remain present for the cross-examination of the workman. Thereafter, vide order dated 06.05.2017 right of cross-examination came to be closed by the learned labour court below Ex.31. On remanding back the matter, learned court had issued Notice to both the parties and they appeared, wherein, the workman has filed the examination-in-chief below Exh.30, however, the petitioner-corporation did not remain present for the cross-examination of the workman. Thereafter, vide order dated 06.05.2017 right of cross-examination came to be closed by the learned labour court below Ex.31. No evidence was led for the petitioner-corporation, therefore application below Ex.32 came to be filed by the workman-Union praying to close the right to produce evidence which came to be allowed vide order dated 15.07.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner-corporation filed an application below Ex.34 for reopening the right of the corporation for cross-examining the respondent workman and to reopen the right of the petitioner to produce the evidence, however, after filing the application, again the advocate of the petitioner corporation remained absent and therefore, learned labour court dismissed the application below Ex.34. Thereafter, also petitioner remained absent and therefore, stage of the final argument was also closed vide order below Ex.35. Learned labour court, as per the directions issued by this Court has concluded the proceedings and passed award on 28.09.2017 allowing the reference of the workman granting the reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages. 4. The petitioner-corporation preferred an application being Miscellaneous Application No.23 of 2018 before the learned labour court for restoration of reference under Rule 26(a) of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat Rules) Act, which was also rejected by the learned labour court vide order dated 28.09.2017. The petitioner has challenged both the orders that is passed in main reference as well as the application under Rule 26(a) of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat Rules) Act by way of present petition. 5. Heard learned advocate Mr.Nilesh Pandya for the petitioner and Mr.Darshit Thakkar for the respondent. 6. Learned advocate Mr.Pandya submits that respondent workman was a temporary employee and had not produced any evidence to show that he completed 240 days in the preceding year from the date of termination. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya submits that as it is undisputed fact that he was arrested with regard to the Godhra communal riots and therefore, there was no necessity to hold a detailed departmental inquiry and in view of the same, termination cannot be held illegal. Learned advocate Mr. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya submits that as it is undisputed fact that he was arrested with regard to the Godhra communal riots and therefore, there was no necessity to hold a detailed departmental inquiry and in view of the same, termination cannot be held illegal. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya submits that application which was filed for additional evidence and to open the stage of cross-examination of the workman was also rejected by the learned labour court without providing sufficient opportunity. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya submits that as no chance was given to the present petitioner to led the evidence, learned labour court has committed grave error in passing the impugned judgment and award, therefore, same is required to be set aside by allowing the petition. 7. Per Contra, learned advocate Mr.Thakkar submits that learned labour court, while passing the impugned award has provided sufficient opportunity to led the evidence and despite that, petitioner-corporation failed to avail the same and, therefore, there was no option left with the learned labour court, but to pass an award. Learned advocate Mr. Thakkar submits that as the petitioner did not appear before the learned labour court after the stage of the evidence, as well as cross-examination came to be closed, learned labour court was justified in passing the impugned award. 7.1. Learned advocate Mr. Thakkar submits that as per the directions issued by this Court, the proceedings has to be concluded on or before 30.09.2017 and petitioner corporation was well within the knowledge of the said fact as with the consent of both the parties, this Court has passed the order remanding back the reference to the learned labour court. Learned advocate Mr. Thakkar submits that in absence of any defence taken, learned labour court has rightly awarded the reference in favour of the present petitioner. Learned advocate Mr. Thakkar submits that learned labour court has provided one more opportunity while entertaining the application filed below Exh.34 to reopen the stage of cross-examination. However, due to absence of the representative for petitioner-corporation, same came to be rejected. 7.2. Learned advocate Mr. Thakkar submits that the reference which was filed in the year 2003, though awarded in favour of the respondent-workman, however, due to lethargic approach of the present petitioner corporation, he could not reap the fruits of the award. Learned advocate Mr. However, due to absence of the representative for petitioner-corporation, same came to be rejected. 7.2. Learned advocate Mr. Thakkar submits that the reference which was filed in the year 2003, though awarded in favour of the respondent-workman, however, due to lethargic approach of the present petitioner corporation, he could not reap the fruits of the award. Learned advocate Mr. Thakkar submits that learned labour court, after giving sufficient and reasonable opportunity, has passed detailed reasons of wages as well as the application which was rejected was also on cogent ground and therefore, no interference is required and the petitioner is required to be dismissed. 8. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for respective parties, it transpires that it is undisputed fact that the respondent-workman was serving as a Driver of vehicle till date. On 28.05.1999 for a temporary period, the said tenure was extended from time to time and in the month of March, 2002, the workman came to be arrested with regard to Godhra train communal riots. On releasing on bail, he approached the petitioner-corporation on 04.07.2002 wherein, he was informed that his service was terminated on 04.07.2006 without having any departmental inquiry. 9. Being aggrieved by the above termination order, dispute was raised before the learned labour court rejecting the Reference LCV No.289 of 2003 which was partly allowed in favour of the respondent-workman by holding that termination is illegal and respondent was awarded lumpsum compensation of Rs.65,000/-. Being aggrieved by the same, petition was filed before this Court being No.1592 of 2014 wherein, with the consent of both the parties, matter was remanded back to the learned labour court, Vadodara. Order dated 06.12.2016 with a direction to decide the reference preferably on or before 30.09.2017 again reference was restored to the original file and petitioner-Union despite remained present through a representative fails to lead any evidence to show that respondent is not entitled for any relief. It transpires from the record that various opportunities were given at different stages while closing the stage of cross-examination, closing the stage of evidence and closing the stage of arguments. It transpires from the record that various opportunities were given at different stages while closing the stage of cross-examination, closing the stage of evidence and closing the stage of arguments. Despite the same, petitioner failed in availing the said opportunity, thereafter, also applications below Exh.34 which was filed for reopening stage where petitioner remained absent and therefore, learned labour court has awarded reference in favour of the respondent-workman by directing the petitioner-corporation to reinstate with continuity of services as well as without back wages. Challenging the same, application under Rule 26(a) was filed before learned labour court. Learned labour court, after hearing the parties, comes to the conclusion that in absence of any evidence which was led, learned labour court is justified in passing the impugned award and despite several opportunities, petitioner representative did not appear. 10. This Court is of the view that when there is no evidence led at both the stages when initial reference was awarded in favour of the respondent-workman vide order dated 28.09.2017 and thereafter award dated 27.08.2021, learned labour court is justified in concluding that respondent-workman is entitled for the reliefs of reinstatement. On perusing the reasons assigned by the learned labour court, this Court did not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and therefore, petitioner being devoid of merits requires to be dismissed. 11. Resultantly, this petition is hereby dismissed.