K.M. Thaker, J.

1. Heard Mr. Karia, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Shah, learned advocate for the respondent.

2. The petition being Special Civil Application No. 20 of 2013 is filed by Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Nigam') through its Deputy Executive Engineer against the award dated 29.9.2011 passed by the learned Labour Court at Surendranagar in Complaint No. 2 of 2003 whereby the learned Labour Court has directed the Nigam to reinstate original complainant on his original post with 50% backwages. Whereas the petition being Special Civil Application No. 17955 of 2014 is filed by union, on behalf of the concerned workman, against the award dated 23.9.2011 passed by the learned Labour Court at Surendranagar in Reference (LCD) No. 6 of 2003 whereby the learned Labour Court declined the demand of the union on behalf of the concerned workman for regularization and status of permanent workman for the concerned claimant.

2.1 The contesting parties in both the cases are common. Besides this, the subject matter of the dispute is interconnected. In view of the said fact, learned advocates for the contesting parties have made common submissions with regard to their respective cases, for both the petitions. Since the common issues and contentions are involved in both the cases, the captioned two petitions are decided by this common judgment.

3. The original claimant had raised demand that in view of the long, regular and continuous service his service should be regularized and status of permanent workman should be conferred to him. The employer did not accept the said demand. Therefore, the dispute arose between the parties. The union named Surendranagar Jilla Mazdoor Sangh sponsored the dispute. Appropriate Government, vide order of reference dated 26.3.2003, referred the said demand for adjudication to the learned Labour Court at Surendranagar. The said dispute culminated into Reference (LCD) No. 6 of 2003.

3.1 It has also emerged from the record that while the said dispute was pending before Conciliation Officer and while the dispute was pending for adjudication before the learned Labour Court, the Nigam discontinued service of the original claimant, i.e. Mr. M.D. Khokhar with effect from 25.7.2003, i.e. after the order of reference was passed by appropriate Government [which culminated into Reference (LCD) No. 6 of 2003]. Differently put, during pendency of the dispute related to the demand of Mr. Khokhar for regularization in service, his service came to be discontinued by Nigam on 25.7.2003 and that, therefore, the claimant felt aggrieved and he invoked provision under Sections 33 and 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and filed complaint before the learned Labour Court on the ground that his service is illegally terminated and that the Nigam has committed breach of Section 33 of the Act. The said complaint came to be registered as Complaint No. 2 of 2003 in Reference (LCD) No. 6 of 2003.

3.2 The claimant filed his statement of claim in above mentioned Reference (LCD) No. 6 of 2003 with the allegation that he is in service with the Nigam since last 11 years and he is working as Driver and that though he is continuously employed by the Nigam for 11 years as Driver and despite the fact that he has been working regularly and continuously for such long period of 11 years, his service is not considered permanent and the status of permanent workman is not conferred to him and he is deprived of benefit of permanent workman. With such allegation, he demanded regularization in service and status of permanent workman as well as the benefit on par with the permanent workman. The claimant, through the union, contended that there is vacancy on permanent post of sanctioned set up and that, therefore, there is justification in his demand, more particularly because he has been working continuously since last 11 years and in each year, he has work