JUDGMENT :

VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.

1. Rule. Learned Advocate, Mr. Samir Gohi, waives service of rule for the Respondent- Workman.

1.1 Since, the issue involved in this petition, runs in a narrow compass, with the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, the same is taken-up for hearing and final disposal, at the admission stage.

2. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned award, dated 07.01.2017, passed by Labour Court No. 1, Junagadh, in Reference-T Case No. 22 of 2007, whereby, the Tribunal ordered the petitioner to reinstate the Respondent-Workman with the continuity of service, but, without back-wages.

3. Learned Advocate, Ms. Acharya, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Respondent-Workman was appointed as a part-time Peon on daily wage basis and she was to work for two hours a day. The duty of the Respondent-Workman was cleaning and providing water in the Primary School, Keshod.

3.1 It was submitted that the Respondent-Workman joined services with the petitioner on 01.04.1997 and thereafter, she worked as a daily wager in Mid Day Meal Scheme from the year 2004 to 2006.

3