( 1 ) IN both these petitions, the petitioner - Karjan municipality by way of this petition has challenged the judgment and award of the Labour Court in Reference [l. V. C. ] No. 880 of 1999 dated 3rd June, 2002, whereby the Labour Court has directed the petitioner Municipality to reinstate the respondents on their original post with 40% backwages and costs of Rs. 1000.

( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner - Municipality is that the respondents were appointed as Clerk vide Office Order dated 24th April, 1998 on temporary basis for a period of three months on a fixed salary of Rs. 2,100=00. The said order is annexed at Annexure-B to the petition. The respondents were further continued for a period of three months and ultimately the District Collector, Baroda initiated proceedings under Section 258 of the municipalities Act and suspended the Resolution of the petitioner - Municipality appointing the respondents on temporary basis. Pursuant to the order of the collector, Baroda the respondents were relieved from service w. e. f. 25th February, 1999. It is the case of the petitioner - Municipality that on 23rd March, 1999 the Collector, Baroda has restrained them from implementing the Resolution dated 5th August, 1998 and 21st November, 1998. 2. 1. THE present respondents approached the Labour court by way of Reference being Reference [l. C. V. ] No. 882 of 1999, wherein the petitioner - Municipality filed their reply on 12th July, 2001. Inspite of the specific contention by the petitioner - Municipality that the respondents were appointed on temporary basis and they were relieved, in view of the order passed by the collector, Baroda, the Labour Court had directed reinstatement on their original post with 40% backwages. 2. 2. BEING aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner - Municipality has approached this Court. This Court, while admitting the petition on 27th December, 2002, granted stay against backwages and has refused the request for staying the reinstatement in service and it was stated by the Chief Officer, that the respondents will be reinstated in service as per the impugned award on or before 1st January, 2003. 2. 3. MR. Patel learned advocate for the petitioner municipality submitted that order at annexure-A was passed without considering the appointment order which was for a fixed period and, therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Industrial disputes Act, it is not retrenchment and, therefore, section 25-F would be the applicable. 2. 4. MR. Patel for the petitioner Municipality submitted that the appointments of the respondents were in clear violation of the prescribed procedure. He further submitted that as per the provisions of municipalities Act, appointment can be made only after approval of the Director of the Municipality and after fulfilling the prescribed procedure including inviting applications though the employment exchange. Thus, the appointments of the respondents were back door entry, which cannot be regularized under the guise of provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. 5. MR. Patel also contented that the Labour Court has committed error in ignoring the fact that the respondents were not regularized, in view of the order passed by the Collector, Baroda under the Municipalities act and the Labour Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the Collector. Mr. Patel has further contended that because of the abolition of octroi, there are surplus staff and to accommodate those surplus staff, temporary staff cannot be continued. 2. 6. IN view of the above, Mr. Patel has relied upon the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Halvad Nagarpalika and Ors. v, Jani Dipakbhai chandravadanbhai reported in {2003) 2 G. H. J. p. 397, wherein it has been held that, in view of the judgment of honble Supreme Court, provisions of Section 25-F cannot be invoked in the case of daily wage employees whose appointments are without followi