JUDGMENT 1. - In this petition the employer challenges the validity and correctness of the Award, Annexure-7 dated February 27, 1987 made by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur. 2. As per averments disclosed in the writ petition, the respondent No. 2 Om Prakash was employed as daily wage employee (illiterate) by the petitioner in the month of August, 1979. He continued to work from 1.7.1979 to 5.7.1980. All of a sudden, on 5.7.80 his services were abruptly terminated by the petitioner. At the time of termination of his service. Om Prakash (hereinafter referred to as the workman) was getting Rs. 210/- per month as consolidated wages. The workman raised the industrial dispute and the State Government made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (for short, as "the Act"). The reference was in the terms as to whether the termination of the service of Om Prakash was valid and proper. Both the parties appeared in the Industrial Tribunal and adduced evidence pertaining to their respective allegations and counter allegations. On the conclusion of the inquiry the learned Judge of the Tribunal held that the termination of the workman's service was invalid and inoperative because it was made in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. As a result, the termination was held illegal and the workman was reinstated will full back wages at the rate of Rs. 210/- per month. The employer has now come to this court and challenges the award on the ground that the workman was reappointed on 1.10.1980 on the same post by the petitioner by order, Annexure-5. In compliance of this Order Annexure-5 he joined the duty. Annexure-5 withdraws the earlier termination of the workman's service. The effect of Annexure-5 was not taken into consideration by the Tribunal. The petition was contested by the workman. It was stated that Annexure-5 does not withdraw the earlier termination order. Annexure-5 was only for the period from 1.10.80 to 31.10.80. Even if the workman worked during this period of October, 1980 with the petitioner, it does not create any estoppel against him. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The clinching issue before us is whether Annexure-5 withdraws the termination of the petitioner's service made earlier and whether the award becomes inoperative on account of Annexure-5. Our answer is against the employer-petitioner. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The clinching issue before us is whether Annexure-5 withdraws the termination of the petitioner's service made earlier and whether the award becomes inoperative on account of Annexure-5. Our answer is against the employer-petitioner. The petitioner's (sic non-petitioner's) services were abruptly terminated on 5.7 80. If he was given a fresh appointment for one month by Annexure-5, it does not validate the termination of his service made on 5.7.80. Annexure-5 does not continue the service. It gives a fresh appointment. The petitioner's working for one month in compliance of Order-Annexure-5 does not create any estoppel against him and he is not estopped from challenging the termination of his service made on 5.7.80. It was not at all necessary for the workman to challenge the validity of Annexure-5 by which he was appointed again for a fixed period of one month. 4. A similar situation arose in Harimohan v. Labour Court [1984 A.I.R. (SC) 502] , wherein the workman was re-employed afresh as Sub-Station Assistant and was confirmed on that post. That was however not taken to crate any estoppel against him for challenging the termination of his service as Godown Incharge. 5. No other contention was raised to challenge the validity or correctness of the impugned Award. Annexure-7. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no force in this petition and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.Petition Dismissed. *******