1. Heard Mr. Krutik Parikh, learned AGP for petitioner and Mr. Chhaya, learned advocate for respondent.

1.1 Learned advocates had concluded their submissions yesterday i.e. on 13.6.2018. However for dictation of order the petition came to be adjourned today. Though learned advocate for respondent has filed leave note, in view of the fact that learned advocates for both sides have already concluded their submissions the Court proceeds to dictate the order.

2. In SCA No. 9190 of 2016 the petitioner, Deputy Executive Engineer, Rajkot has placed under challenge award dated 3.11.2015 passed by learned Labour Court at Rajkot in Reference (LCR) No. 13/2010.

3. Whereas in SCA No. 9195 of 2016 the petitioner Deputy Executive Engineer, Rajkot has placed under challenge, award dated 3.11.2015 passed by learned Labour Court at Rajkot in Reference (LCR) No. 11/2010.

4. Though separate awards in respect of 2 different employees are placed under challenge in captioned petitions, learned AGP as well as learned advocate for the said 2 persons have put forward common submissions. It is clarified by learned advocates that almost identical awards are passed in respect of the said 2 reference cases/ 2 workmen. The reasons assigned by learned Labour Court in support of conclusion and final directions are almost identical in both the awards. On the said premise the learned advocates for both the sides have, respectively, raised common contentions against and in support of the awards. Therefore both the petitions are decided by this common order.

5. So far as the factual backdrop is concerned it has emerged from the record that the said workman concerned in Reference No.13/2010 (Mr. M.D.Dabhasariya) raised industrial dispute in 2010 against present petitioner with the allegations that the employer illegally terminated his service in September, 1999. In February, 2010, appropriate government referred the dispute for adjudication to learned Labour Court at Rajkot. Learned Labour Court registered the dispute as Reference (LCR) No.13/2010. In his statement of claim the workman claimant alleged that he joined the service as daily wage labourer in January, 1995 and he worked continuously and regularly as daily wage worker until September, 1999 when the employer illegally and arbitrarily terminated his service without following procedure prescribed by law. He alleged that he had worked for 240 days however the opponent employer committed breach of Section 25F, Section 25G and Section 25H. With the said allegations the workman claimed that he should be reinstated in service with all benefits.

6. So far as the workman in Reference Case No. 11/2010 is concerned, he also raised industrial dispute in 2010 against present petitioner with almost identical allegations that the allegations that the employer (present petitioner) illegally terminated his service in September, 1999. This dispute also came to be referred by appropriate government for adjudication to Labour Court at Rajkot in February, 2010. The workman concerned in Reference Case No.11/2010 also made identical allegations in his statement of claim which he filed on record of reference case No. 11/2010 inasmuch as he also claimed that he joined the service as daily wage labourer in January, 1995 and he worked as such until September, 1999 when the employer illegally terminated his service. He also alleged that he worked for 240 days however employer terminated his service without following procedure prescribed and in breach of Section 25F, Section 25G and Section 25H. On the said premise he demanded that he should be reinstated with all benefits.

7. In both reference cases the opponent i.e. present petitioner, having regard to the fact that claimants had made similar allegations, filed separate written statements (Reply) however with similar defence and contentions. The opponent employer placed relevant factual backdrop on record of the said reference cases, through its separate reply. In its written