JUDGMENT :

1. By way of present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the judgement and award passed by the Labour Court, Surendranagar in Reference (LCS) No.123 of 2001 dated 15/5/2007, by which the Labour Court has rejected the reference so far as the petitioners herein are concerned.

2. FACTS:

2.1. It is the case of the petitioners that they they were working as a daily wager Labourer with the respondent No.1 since many years and they have worked continuously with the respondent and had worked for more than 240 days in each and every year and were getting wages as per minimum wage. It is the case of the petitioners that their services were orally terminated w.e.f. 1/10/1987 without issuing notice, without paying notice pay or retrenchment. It is the case of the petitioners that juniors of the petitioners were retained by the respondent No.1 and after termination of the petitioners, other employees were employed. Thus, it is the case of the petitioners that the termination of the petitioners is in violation of the mandatory provisions of sections 25(F), 25(G) and 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, the petitioners along with other employees lodged common complaint before the conciliation officer, Surendranagar, but the said complaint was not resolved between the parties and it was referred to the Labour Court, Surendranagar being Reference (LCS) No.123 of 2001.

2.2. The petitioners have filed an affidavit in support of their claim on oath below Ex25 and 34, respectively. However, no statement of claim was submitted by the petitioners herein. Thereafter respondent No.1 had filed affidavit of witness in support of their claim below Ex.40 namely R.R. Kanthiriya was and he was cross examined.

2.3. The respondent No.1 opposed the reference by filing written statement before the Labour Court and contended that the petitioners were not working under the respondent and therefore, there is no question of terminating their services. It was submitted that the petitioners have not worked for more than 240 days in any of the years. It was submitted that no breach of provisions of sections 25(F), 25(G) and/or 25(H) of the Industrial Act has been committed by the respondent No.1.

2.3. Thereafter, considering the material on record and hearing the learned advocates for the respondent, the Labour Court rejected the reference. Hence, the petitioners have preferred the present petition.

3. Submissions of the petitioners :

3.1. Mr.Mukesh Rathod, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the services of the petitioners have been terminated after more than eight years though the petitioners have continuously worked and though the petitioners have completed more than 240 days in each and every year. It is submitted that before termination of the services of the petitioner, no notice, notice pay or retrenchment allowance has been paid to the petitioners. It is submitted that juniors to the petitioners were retained while terminating the services of the petitioners. It is submitted that after termination of the petitioners, new employees were engaged. It is submitted that the impugned termination of the petitioners is in violation of the provisions of section 25(F), 25(G) and 25 (H) of the Industrial Act. It is submitted that the reference of the similar situated employees who had filed reference along with the petitioners, has been allowed and relief of reinstatement has been granted. However, in the similar facts, the reference of the petitioners has been rejected on the ground of non-filing of the statement of claim. It is submitted that statement of claim of the petitioners could not be filed due to mistake of the representative of the union, though statement of claim of the petitioners were prepared and signatures of the petitioners were obtained on the statement of claim. It is submitted that the Labour Court has rejected the reference o