K.M. Thaker, J.

Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned advocate for the respondent.

2. By present petition, the Municipal Corporation has challenged award dated 7.7.2006 passed by learned Labour Court in Reference No.388/2009 whereby the learned Labour Court directed present petitioner to reinstate the claimant on his original post with 50% backwages.

3. So far as factual background is concerned, it has emerged that present respondent raised industrial dispute with the allegation that opponent No.2 Gram Panchayat illegally terminated his service on 16.6.2005.

3.1 Appropriate government referred the dispute for adjudication to learned Labour Court at Ahmedabad. The learned Labour Court registered the dispute as Reference (LCA) No.388/2009.

3.2 In his statement of claim before the learned Labour Court the claimant alleged that he joined service with Opponent No.2 Gram Panchayat on 1.7.2003. He also alleged that he was engaged as permanent employee and that he worked as Bore Operator and was paid salary at the rate of Rs. 2000/-. He further alleged that that the Sarpanch illegally terminated his service by oral order on 16.6.2005. The claimant alleged that the termination of his service was effected in breach of statutory provision under Section 25F, Section 25G and Section 25H and that the Sarpanch terminated his service without notice and without conducting inquiry.

3.3 In the said reference case the claimant also impleaded present corporation as one of the opponents on the ground that after his service was terminated the opponent no.2 Gram Panchayat came to be merged with the opponent Municipal Corporation. On that ground he claimed relief against the Corporation.

3.4 The opponent corporation filed reply (written statement) and opposed the reference on various grounds. The corporation opposed the maintainability of the reference on the ground of delay. The opponent corporation also opposed the reference on the ground that the corporation had not taken any action against the claimant and that his service was terminated, according to his own allegation, as back as in June, 2005 when the corporation was not in picture and the Gram Panchayat came to be merged with the corporation only in February, 2006 and the corporation took the charge on 15.2.2006 and that therefore the claimant is not entitled to any relief against the corporation. The Corporation also claimed that since the corporation never terminated the service of the claimant, he cannot claim any relief against the corporation. It also claimed that on the date of the notification and/or on the date when the Gram Panchayat came to be merged with the corporation, the claimant was not an employee of the corporation and that therefore he also cannot claim any relief against the corporation. With such averment the corporation opposed the reference and the taken by the claimant.

4. During the proceedings before the learned Labour Court both sides placed respective evidence. Upon conclusion of the evidence, learned Labour Court heard rival submission and thereafter passed impugned award with above mentioned direction.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the said award, the corporation has filed present petition.

6. During pendency of present proceedings the workman claimant filed affidavit opposing the petition. Subsequently, the respondent also filed affidavit and placed on record of present petition documents and other material which was available on record of Reference Case before learned Labour Court.

7. The corporation filed rejoinder affidavit.

8. In this background, Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the petitioner corporation reiterated the contention which were raised before learned Labour Court. He opposed the claim that the claimant was permanent workman. Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the corporation submitted that as on the date of the Notification and on the date when the corporation took charge, the name of the claimant was not in the register and the claimant wa