M.R. SHAH, J.

1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of Letters Patent Appeals and as such arise out of the common impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge and as such Letters Patent Appeal Nos.2322/2017 to 2327/2017 are the Cross Appeals to the appeals preferred by the original workmen being Letters Patent Appeal Nos.2290/2017 with 2614/2017 to 2618/2017, all these Letters Patent Appeals are heard, decided and disposed of together by this common judgment and order.

2. The facts leading to the present Letters Patent Appeals in nutshell are as under:

2.1 That respective original respondent – original workmen were serving as daily wager watchman. All of them raised industrial dispute challenging their retrenchment / termination which were referred to the Labour Court, Bhavnagar (hereinafter referred to as “Labour Court”) which were numbered as Reference (LCB) No.203/1990 to 204/1990, 207/1990 to 209/1990 and 211/1990. It was the case on behalf of the original workmen that their termination / retrenchment was in breach of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “ID Act”) more particularly sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the ID Act. All the references were opposed by the Gujarat Maritime Board – employer, it was the specific case on behalf of the employer – GMB that none of the workmen had worked for more than 240 days in the last preceding year. It was also the case on behalf of the employer – GMB that all the concerned workmen were appointed as casual – temporary watchman for a period of 4 months only and that they worked for the period between July 1987 to November 1987. It was the specific case on behalf of the employer – GMB that as and when the ship comes they were appointed on a purely temporary daily wage basis to help the permanent watchman. It was also the case on behalf of the management – employer that all of them were appointed at Nokha / Juna Bandar and as the work on the said port was closed, their services were put to an end.

2.2 That on appreciation of evidence the learned Labour Court specifically observed and held that the concerned workmen have failed to prove that they have worked for not less than 240 days in the last preceding year. The learned Labour Court also specifically observed and held that the concerned workmen worked only for the period between July 1987 to November 1987 and that too as a daily wage temporary watchman. Therefore, the learned Labour Court held that there was no breach of section 25F of the ID Act. However, the learned Labour Court held that there was a breach of section 25G and 25H of the ID Act as subsequently on other ports the watchman were appointed. Therefore, the learned Labour Court held the termination illegal and in breach of section 25G and 25H of the ID Act and consequently granted reinstatement with 20% backwages with continuity of service.

2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the respective judgment and awards passed by the learned Labour Court of reinstatement with continuity of 20% backwages, the GMB – employer preferred Special Civil Application Nos.2116/2009, 2117/2009, 2119/2009 to 2121/2009 and 2123/2009. That by common impugned judgment and order the learned Single Judge partly allowed the aforesaid Special Civil Applications by quashing and setting aside the order of continuity and 20% backwages, however has confirmed the awards passed by the learned Labour Court granting reinstatement.

2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid Special Civil Applications, both the GMB – employer as well as the original workmen have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Letters Patent Appeal Nos.2322/2017 to 2332/2017 are preferred by the GMB – employer and Letters Patent Appeal Nos.2290/2017 and 2164/2017 to 2168/2017 are preferred by the concerned ori