JUDGMENT :

1. Rule returnable forthwith. With consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, these matters are taken up for final hearing today.

2. In all these petitions, the awards of the Labour Court in the respective petitions are under challenge by the petitioners, by which, the Labour Court has awarded compensation to each of the petitioners rather than reinstatement with backwages as prayed for by the petitioners.

3. For the purposes of facts and arguments, Mr.Dipak Dave, learned counsel for the petitioners, has relied on the facts of Special Civil Application No. 34 of 2021. The petitioner, Gemabhai M. Solanki, filed a Statement of Claim before the Labour Court, Godhra, at Exh.4. It was his case before the Labour Court that he was engaged by the respondents as a daily wager from 12.01.1980. He was working at the Bhadar Canal Sub-Division. It was his case that during the course of month, he would work for a period ranging from 22 to 25 days, for which, though no appointment orders are issued, attendance sheets were maintained. Their services were terminated without following the procedure under Sec.25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act. They were paid Rs.30/- per day. Their salaries /wages were paid by drawing vouchers. It was his case that his services were put to an end from 02.12.2000 without following the procedure and without awarding compensation. Violation of Secs.25(G) & 25(H) was also pleaded. The respondent - employer, filed a Written Statement at Exh.8. It was their case that the work at the Bhadar Canal Project was closed that they would not fall within the definition of "Industry" within Sec.2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. That no attendance sheet or appointment letters needed to be issued to such employees as they were working as daily wagers. The petitioner was examined at Exh.11. In the reference which was decided by this Court, namely, Reference No. 108 of 2005, at Exh.6, on a demand made by the workmen, attendance records of the last three years were produced by the employer. At that time, the Labour Court was therefore faced with the issue of taking a decision whether the petitioner- workman deserves to be reinstated and also if his termination was bad. On the aspect of delay, the Labour Court observed that there was a delay of three years in raising the dispute.

3.1 On the issue of whether the workman had successfully proved that there was violation of Sec.25(F) based on the workman having completed 240 days of service taking into consideration Sec.25(B) and whether retrenchment was in accordance with Sec.25(F) of the Act, perusal of the award of the Labour Court would indicate that considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue of burden of proof, the Labour Court found that it was undisputed that the petitioner had worked for over a period of 240 days in each year of service till the date of termination in the year 2010. The only documents that were produced by the employer was for the period from January 2007 to December 2009.

4. Considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Director, Fisheries Terminal Division vs. Bhikubhai Meghjibhai Chavda., reported in AIR 2010 SC 1236, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner had worked for over a period of 240 days and that they were engaged for a particular period; that the work on which they were engaged was discontinued was held to be not proved. In other words, therefore, specifically finding violation of Sec.25(F),(G) & (H), the Labour Court awarded compensation in the range of Rs.44,000 to Rs.70,000/- in each of the references relying on a decision in the case of Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd vs. Abdul Kadar Ibrahim Bakali, rendered in Special Civil Application No. 4643 of 2010 dated 25.07.2017. Reliance was also placed on a decision in the case of Gopalbhai Muljibhai Charan vs. Range Forest Officer., rendered in Special Civil Application No. 7821 of 20