JUDGMENT :

1. Both these petitions under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenge the awards passed by the Labour Court, Junagadh, in Reference (T) Case No.81 of 2008 and Reference (T) Case No.83 of 2008 dated 22.02.2017 by which the Labour Court has allowed the references of the respondent workmen and directed reinstatement without back-wages.

2. For the purposes of this judgment, facts of Special Civil Application No.11239 of 2017 will be considered.

3. Before the Labour Court, the respondent-workmen aggrieved by his termination on 22.11.2007, approached the Labour Court assailing the same on the ground that it was in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was the case of the respondents that they were engaged in the Seed Farm run by the Junagadh District Panchayat since 1988. It was their case that their appointment was within the set up in accordance with the regular procedure of recruitment and in fact, by an award passed by the Labour Court in the earlier round when the Labour Court had directed the petitioner Panchayat to grant them the benefits of the resolution dated 17.10.1988. The award which was challenged before the High Court is confirmed and therefore the termination was bad.

4. The stand of the petitioner Panchayat employer was that their termination on 22.11.2007 was as a result of the fact that initially the Seed Farms was with the Panchayat as they were so handed over by the Government. With the passage of time the Seed Farms went under the agricultural university. However thereafter, as the District Panchayat was removed from the control of the Seed Farms, the Seed Farms were handed back to the State Government. It was as a result of the fact of the Seed Farms being out of the Panchayat’s control, that the termination was inevitable. The fact that the respondents-workmen had completed 240 days in each year of service was also denied. It was the case of the petitioner-employer that the provisions of Section 25F was followed and therefore the termination was just and proper.

5. Before the Labour Court, the workman was examined at Exh.12. It was his case that he was engaged with the Seed Farms since the year 1988 on a monthly wage of Rs.2,640/-. That he had completed 240 days of continuous service. That juniors to him were retained. He would draw the attention of the Court to the award of the Labour Court and submit that the same would indicate that one Kana Arjan who was at the Manavadar Seed Farm was detained and according to the workman therefore the violation of Section 25G and 25H.

6. Mr. H.S. Munshaw learned counsel appearing for the Junagadh District Panchayat in both these petitions would submit that the Labour Court had committed an error in not appreciating the fact that the respondents would be relieved after having been handed over the amount of compensation and therefore there was complete procedure that was followed in accordance with Section 25F of the Act. Mr. Munshaw would further submit that the respondent was working as daily wage labourer depending on the availability of work and fund.

7. Mr. Munshaw would further submit that the General Body of the District Panchayat had passed a resolution in its meeting dated 19.03.2007 to handover the possession of the Seed Farms to the Government of Gujarat. The termination was just and proper. As far as the benefits of the resolution dated 17.10.1988 are concerned, it had no relevance to the issue because the termination was as a result of the closure of the seed farm which had nothing to do with the orders passed in the awards relating to the benefits of the resolution dated 17.10.1988.

8. Mr. Samir Gohil learned counsel appearing for the respondent would invite the Court’s attention to the order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.17621 of 2006 wherein, the award granting the benefits of the resolution dated 17.10.1988 was confirmed. Attention was also invited to an order / oral judgement dated 04.04.2017