( 1 ) AT the oral request of the learned counsel for the appellants, leave to delete respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

( 2 ) ADMIT. Mr Hemant Munshaw, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 waives service of notice of admission of the appeals. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeals are taken up for final disposal today.

( 3 ) THIS group of eight appeals challenges the common judgment dated 19. 8. 2004 of the learned Single Judge by which the separate petitions filed by the Panchmahals District Panchayat challenging the recovery certificates issued by the Labour Court, Panchmahals at Godhra are ordered to be set aside on the ground that the eight recovery applications filed by the appellants under Section 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the Act" for short) were not maintainable and also on the ground that the recovery applications were premature and, therefore, the Labour Court had committed a serious error of law. Facts leading to filing of the petitions

( 4 ) SINCE the judgment under appeal does not set out the complete and relevant history of the litigation, it is necessary to set out all the relevant facts leading to filing of the appeals as the facts have vital bearing on the controversy between the parties and also the reliefs to be moulded by this Court. 4. 1 the appellants herein filed recovery application Nos. 3 to 10 of 1995 before the Labour Court at Godhra under Section 33c (2) of the Act claiming all the monetary benefits under the Government Resolution dated 17. 10. 1988 issued by the State Government in the Roads and Buildings Department conferring benefits on the daily wagers who have put in more than five years service. The recovery applications were filed by the appellants for recovery certificates for the monetary benefits under the aforesaid Government Resolution for the period from 1990-91 to 1993-94 as, according to the appellants, all of them had completed five years continuous service prior to 1990-91. Each of the appellants had, therefore, prayed for recovery certificate for a sum of Rs. 52,296/ -. Although the recovery applications were filed in the year 1995 and the respondents were duly served and the Deputy Executive Engineer did even appear before the Labour Court and submitted adjournment application Exh. 4, the respondent-panchayat authorities did not file any reply to the recovery applications. On behalf of the appellants, Shanabhai Parmar was examined as a witness, and other appellants filed affidavits in support of their respective claims. Since none appeared for the employer, the evidence was closed. The respondents were also served with the notices calling upon them to lead evidence. Even then, the respondents did not appear. Even after the written arguments of the appellants were submitted before the Labour Court and a copy of such written arguments was also sent to the respondent-employer by RPAD (RPAD slip Exh. 13), the respondents did not appear before the Labour Court. On the basis of the evidence led before the Labour Court, including the oral evidence of Shanabhai Parmar and the affidavits filed by all individual workmen, the Labour Court rendered the common order dated 23. 2. 2000 directing the respondent authorities to pay each of the appellants a sum of Rs. 52,296/- within thirty days alongwith costs of Rs. 500/- in each case to be paid to the workers union. 4. 2 the aforesaid common order came to be challenged by the respondents before this Court by filing Special Civil Application Nos. 6407 and 6409 to 6414 of 2000. It appears that at the hearing of the said petitions before a learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram : Honble Mr Justice PB Majmudar) on 4. 10. 2001, the petitioners therein (i. e. the panchayat authorities) produced the affidavits filed by the concerned workmen all of which affidavits were affirmed before a Notary Public at Godhra on 3. 10. 2001. All the affidavit