JUDGMENT :

S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner - District Health Officer, Amreli under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenged the Award dated 19.5.2000 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Amreli in Reference Case No. 1799 of 1988, Rajkot, Reference Case No. 130 of 1993, Bhavnagar and Reference Case No. 68 of 1998, Amreli, declaring that the termination dated 31.7.1988 of the services of the workman, was contrary to provisions of Sections 25F, 25H and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) and hence required to be quashed and set aside and after quashing the same, ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages and award cost of Rs. 651/-.

2. Facts in brief deserve to be set out as under.

3. It was the case of the respondent workman before the Competent Court that he was serving as Daily Wager under the petitioner at Rs. 13/- per day as Peon since last 4 years prior to his termination and without following any procedure of law and provisions of Section 25F of the Act, his services came to be terminated on 31.7.1988. The workman thereafter issued notice for reinstatement and raised demand on 9.8.1988 and ultimately, raised Industrial Dispute, which was referred to the Competent Court, wherein, it was numbered as Reference Case No. 1799 of 1988, Rajkot, Reference Case No. 130 of 1993, Bhavnagar and Reference Case No. 68 of 1998, Amreli. Before the learned Labour Court, the respondent workman contended that despite 4 years continuous service, without any rhyme or reason or without following procedure prescribed under the Act, his services came to be terminated on 31.7.1988, which was per-se, illegal and required to be quashed and set aside. The petitioner took a stand before the learned Labour Court that the workman was appointed purely on temporary basis and provisions of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act were not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case of respondent workman. It was further contended by the petitioner that the Public Health Centre, wherein, the workman was working as Peon was closed and as the workman was working as Daily Wager and as and when the work was available with petitioner. It was also contended that the workman of his own volition stopped coming for discharging his duties, meaning thereby, he abandoned his job. After recording its finding with regard to no evidence of workman being appointed regularly and no evidence of workman not completing 240 days in the preceding year, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that termination dated 31.7.1988 was illegal, contrary to law and therefore, quashed the same and ordered reinstatement with continuity of service with full back wages by impugned Award dated 19.5.2000, which is impugned in the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. Shri Munshaw, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the workman was only employed as Daily Wager and as such he had no right to invoke protection under Section 25F of the Act. Shri Munshaw further submits that workman had discharged his duties only as and when work was available and in absence of work, the workman was not called for discharging his duties. Learned Labour Court has ignored this aspect. He has further submitted that the Primary Health Centre, where the workman worked, was closed down by the Government and therefore, services of the workman was not required and hence, this aspect ought to have been appreciated by the learned Labour Court.

5. Shri Chauhan, learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that this Court (Coram: P.B. Majmudar, J.) vide order dated 27.8.2001, modified the award qua reinstatement has not been stayed and only the back wages has been stayed. He further submits that pursuant to order dated 27.8.2001, the workman, therefore, was required to be reinstated and accordingly, the petitioner has reinstated