A.S. Supehia, J.

1. The present appeals arise out of common judgment and order dated 24.08.2007 rendered in Special Civil Application Nos. 8684/2000 and 8373/2000, whereby learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions, filed by the present respondent authorities, challenging Award dated 12.01.2000 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Junagadh, in Reference [LCJ] Nos. 219/95 and 220/95, granting reinstatement to the respondents-workmen in service with continuity and full back wages, along with other benefits. During pendency of Special Civil Application No. 8737/2000, the concerned respondent-Workman has expired. His legal heir is brought on record.

2. Facts of the case are adumbrated as under:

3. Both the Workmen were appointed as Work Charged Clerks in the year 1981. Their names and dates of appointment figure at Sr. Nos. 24 and 25 of the seniority list published by the Panchayat, Irrigation Division, Junagadh. As recorded by the Labour Court, they were initially appointed for a period of 29 days, and continued to work in the same capacity in different places. The last order appointing them on fixed salary of Rs. 260.00 for 29 days was passed on 09.04.1986. The said order speaks of appointment for scarcity or relief work at Keshod Taluka. The Workmen were asked to report at Office of Deputy Executive Engineer, Panchayat, Irrigation Sub-Division.

4. Thereafter, vide Order dated 23.06.1986, Taluka Development Officer, Keshod, repatriated/ allotted the workmen to Executive Engineer, Junagadh, since their work was no longer required.

5. The Labour Court, in its Award, has recorded that as the Workmen were not appointed or allotted any work, they filed Civil Suit No. 148/1989 in the District Court. The same was disposed of on entering into compromise with the present respondent authorities. Since the authorities did respect the compromise, the workmen again filed Civil Suit No. 264/1993, which was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Thereafter, they approached Labour Court, Junagadh, by filing Reference (LCJ) Nos. 219/95 and 220/95, wherein by the Award dated 12.01.2000, Labour Court, Junagadh, directed the respondent authorities to reinstate the workmen with continuity of service with full back wages.

6. The present Respondents-original petitioners, by way of Special Civil Application Nos. 8684/2000 and 8737/2000, challenged the award dated 12.01.2000 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Junagadh, in Reference (LCJ) Nos. 219/95 and 220/95. Vide judgment and order dated 24.08.2007, learned Single Judge set aside the said award by observing that in cases of daily wagers, there is nothing like regular reinstatement, because, a daily wager is not a regular workman or employee, his reinstatement would only be inclusion of his name in the list required to be maintained under Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Central Rule 77 or the State Rule 78/82.

7. Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate appearing for the respondent authorities, supported the judgment passed by learned Single Judge by stating that the concerned workmen were only engaged for the purpose of scarcity relief work, and they had no right to claim for appointment after the said relief work was over.

8. Mr. T.R. Mishra, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellants-workmen, has challenged the aforesaid judgment passed by learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court in the present Letters Patent Appeal raising various contentions. It is stated that they were appointed in 1981 by undergoing an interview and worked as regular Work Charged Clerks under the Panchayat. He has also stated that some of the persons, who were juniors to them, were retained, whereas they were terminated from service. A specific contention to this effect was raised before the Labour Court about retaining two workmen, whose names figured at Sr. Nos. 31 and 32, whereas the appellants-workmen, who figured at Sr. Nos. 24 and 25, were terminated. Mr. T.R. Mishra,