K.M. Thaker, J.

1. Heard Ms. Bhaya, learned advocate for the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner' or 'the board') and Mr. Rao, learned advocate for the workmen (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimants').

2. This group of 5 similar petitions is listed together in Today's Cause List. This group of 5 petitions is filed against 5 separate but almost identical awards passed by the Industrial Court in 5 reference cases filed by the union on behalf of 5 claimants. The awards impugned in this group of 5 petitions are separate but similar and the learned Tribunal has relied on common evidence. The petitioner in all 5 petitions is common and is aggrieved by identical directions passed by the learned Tribunal. Learned advocates for the petitioner and the claimants have made common submissions in respect of all 5 petitions which are heard together. In this view of the matter, the group of petitions is decided by this common judgment.

3. Special Civil Application No. 75 of 2011 is filed against award dated 9.3.2010 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Surat in Reference (IT) No. 50 of 1996. Special Civil Application No. 76 of 2011 is filed against award dated 9.3.2010 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Surat in Reference (IT) No. 55 of 1996. Special Civil Application No. 77 of 2011 is filed against award dated 11.3.2010 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Surat in Reference (IT) No. 56 of 1996. Special Civil Application No. 78 of 2011 is filed against award dated 9.3.2010 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Surat in Reference (IT) No. 54 of 1996. Special Civil Application No. 79 of 2011 is filed against award dated 11.3.2010 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Surat in Reference (IT) No. 57 of 1996.

4. By the impugned awards, the learned Industrial Tribunal has directed the board to reinstate the concerned 5 claimants on their original post with continuity of service, however, without backwages.

5. So far as the factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the submissions by learned advocate for the petitioner and the claims and from the impugned award that on behalf of five claimants, a union named Bijlee Mazdoor Panchayat raised a dispute claiming, inter alia, that the service of the said claimants were illegally terminated by the board and that therefore, the claimants should be reinstated with consequential benefits. The appropriate government referred the said industrial dispute for adjudication to the learned Tribunal, Surat. The orders of reference came to be registered as Reference Nos. 50 of 1996, 54 of 1996, 55 of 1996, 56 of 1996 and 57 of 1996. During the proceedings of the said references cases before the learned Tribunal, the union filed statement of claim in the said reference cases wherein it claimed and alleged that the concerned claimants were engaged and employed by the board as workmen on Nominal Muster Roll (NMR) basis and they were paid salary on daily wage basis. It was also alleged that since the claimants were not paid salary as per the rules and pay scale of the board or minimum wages and since the claimants were being exploited, they joined the union. It was also claimed that when union started agitation on behalf of the workmen on NMR basis, daily wages basis and temporary basis. It was further alleged that thereafter, the board illegally and arbitrarily and without any fault on the part of the claimants terminated their services.

5.1 The claimant in reference No. 50 of 1996 claimed that his service was illegally and arbitrarily terminated on and from 16.10.1982. The claimant in reference No. 54 of 1996 claimed that his service was illegally and arbitrarily terminated w.e.f. 29.2.1984. The claimant in reference No. 56 of 1996 claimed that his service was illegally and arbitrarily terminated w.e.f. 10.3.1984. The claimant in reference No. 57 of 1996 claimed that his service was illegally and arbitrarily terminated w.e.f. 16.10.1982. The claimant