JUDGMENT : PRANAV TRIVEDI, J. The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is filed by the original petitioners assailing the correctness of the judgment and order dated 23.07.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.3729 of 2007. 2. The prayer made in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge by the appellants was to quash and set aside the impugned award dated 24.04.2006 passed by the Labour Court at Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No.1879 of 1995 holding that there is violation of the provisions of Section 25(G) & 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as to "the Act") and therefore, the respondent was eligible for reinstatement without back-wages. 3. Learned Single Judge held that the petitioners have failed to lead any evidence with regard to the issue that respondent had not worked for 240 days or any other issues that were raised in the writ petition. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was pleased to hold that there can be no fault found with the reasoning and observations of the Labour Court and in view of the letter of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, it clearly appears that the workman - respondent has completed work for 274 days with the Corporation and therefore, there is a breach of Section 25(G) & 25(H) of the Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the petition and uphold the impugned award dated 24.04.2006 passed by the Labour Court at Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No.1879 of 1995. 4. The background of the facts which has led to the writ petition before the Court is that the respondent was provided the work as a Daily Wage Compounder from 24.07.1990 till 06.06.1992. The respondent was terminated from his services with effect from 01.07.1992. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent approach the Labour Court by way of preferring a Reference. The said reference came to be numbered as Reference (LCA) No.1879 of 1995. 4.1 By way of an award dated 24.04.2006, it was adjudged that there is no breach with regard to Section 25(F) of the Act. However, there was a breach of Section 25(G) & 25(H) of the Act and therefore, the respondent was awarded reinstatement with continuity, but without back-wages. Therefore, the petitioners - Corporation preferred a writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 3729 of 2007. However, there was a breach of Section 25(G) & 25(H) of the Act and therefore, the respondent was awarded reinstatement with continuity, but without back-wages. Therefore, the petitioners - Corporation preferred a writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 3729 of 2007. The learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties, rejected the petition of the petitioners. In such circumstances, the petitioners have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 5. We have heard learned advocate Mr. H. S. Munshaw for the appellants - original petitioners and learned advocate Mr. U. T. Mishra for learned advocate Mr. T. R. Mishra for the respondent. 6. It has been contended by learned advocate Mr. H. S. Munshaw for the appellants that the learned Single Judge as well as the Labour Court have failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent was offered work as a Badli Daily Wage Compounder depending upon the availability of the work in absence of regular and permanent post holder. The respondent was not selected after following due procedure of recruitment and was not holding any permanent and sanctioned post. Therefore, the respondent who had worked hardly for a few days in the year 1991-1992 purely on daily wage basis, would not be entitled to reinstatement with continuity on a para medical post after the gap of 29 years. Such post requires continuous and consistent experience and therefore, the respondent was not entitled or reinstatement. 6.1 It has further been contended by learned advocate Mr. Munshaw that the learned Single Judge erred in not appreciating that reinstatement with continuity after almost 30 years would result in to manifold administrative problems and cause a heavy monetary burden on public exchequer. Therefore, learned advocate Mr. Munshaw argued that this can be a case of compensation but not for reinstatement. 7. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. U. T. Mishra for the respondent was working as a Pharmacist (Compounder) in the Smt. Sardaben Chimanlal Municipal Hospital, which is run by the appellant. The services of the respondent came to be illegally and arbitrarily terminated which has resulted into an industrial dispute. During the pendency of the writ petition before this Court, interim relief was granted against implementation and execution of the award and therefore, the respondent was getting wages as required under Section 17(B) of the Act. 7.1 It was further contended by learned advocate Mr. During the pendency of the writ petition before this Court, interim relief was granted against implementation and execution of the award and therefore, the respondent was getting wages as required under Section 17(B) of the Act. 7.1 It was further contended by learned advocate Mr. Mishra that the learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties has rejected the petition and confirmed the award on the basis that the respondent had completed 240 days in the last 12 preceding months before the termination. After his termination, the petitioner has categorically employee, namely, Babubhai Patel and therefore, there was a clear case of violation of mandatory provisions of Section 25(H) of the Act. 7.2 It was further canvassed by learned advocate Mr. Mishra that the respondent had no work experience reinstatement to the post after 30 years would lead to utter failure, is a misleading argument by the appellants. It was submitted that the respondent had passed Pharmacy examination in the year March, 1990. Thereafter, the Gujarat State Pharmacy Council is taking examination every 5 years and as being a Pharmacist. The respondent has appeared in the said examination in the month of October, 2016 and thereafter, in the month of February, 2022 and has passed the examination and license of the Pharmacist was renewed. Therefore, he has experienced of the post and even today he has qualified candidate. 7.3 It was further contended by learned advocate Mr. Mishra that the respondent has filed an affidavit on oath and he has not gainfully employee and he has not secured any alternate employment and therefore, the award passed by the Labour Court reinstating the respondent, which is confirmed by the learned Single Judge is just and proper. 7.4 To substantiate his submission, learned advocate Mr. Mishra for the respondent has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court which is in the case of Jasmer Singh versus State of Haryana and another reported in (2015) 4 SCC 458 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 9 has observed that workman has rendered more than 240 days service and there is a breach of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act then even after a period of 30 years the workman was reinstated. 8. 8. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it appears that the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge has categorically observed that the workman - respondent has filed documentary evidence and the appellants - original petitioners have not filed any documentary evidence. There is an admission by both the parties that with regard to the factum of end of service of workman. Further, the Labour Court as well as learned Single Judge have appreciated the fact that the respondent has worked for 274 days. Further, there is a documentary evidence that the persons, who is appointed after the appellant, namely, Babubhai Patel has been retained and another employee, namely, Mr. Abdulkarim A. Soniwala is appointed after the termination of the present respondent. Such documentary evidences are placed on record. 9. Further, the documentary evidence of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner is also produced at Exh.28 wherein it is admitted that the respondent has worked for 274 days from 24.07.1990 till 06.06.1992. Therefore, in view of such finding, we do not find any fault with the impugned award passed by the Labour Court as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Resultantly, the appeal fails. 10. The present Letters Patent Appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.