JUDGMENT : H.H. Kantharia, J.—In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners-employers, and award dated 7th January, 1985, made by the learned Presiding Officer, Second Labour Court, Bombay in Reference (IDA) No. 955 of 1980, has been impugned. By the impugned award the learned Labour Judge has granted relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages to the first respondent-workman. 2. On perusing the record placed before me and hearing the learned Counsel on both the sides, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned award. The record shows that the workman here was employed by the petitioners as a Booking Clerk from 1st October, 1979 to 8th May, 1980. During this period he was also made to work in another theatre called "Barkha". His monthly wages were Rs. 315/-. On 9th May, 1980 he was paid his wages upto 8th May, 1980 and was told by the Manager of the petitioners by name Yatin Desai that his services were terminated with immediate effect and from 9th May, 1980 he was not allowed to join duty. The evidence of the workman shows that in May, 1980 three more persons were given appointments as Booking Clerks. There seems to be truth in this evidence of the workman because the petitioners witness, Yatin Desai, Who was asked in cross-examination as to whether after discontinuing the services of the workman he had appointed one Patel and one Shaikh as Booking Clerks he stated that he did not remember it. In other words, Yatin Desai was trying to suppress truth from the Court. One can understand if it is a very large establishment where hundreds of clerks were employed that it would be difficult for a Manager to say whether after discontinuing a particular workman he had appointed some persons for the same work. Here is a small concern owning two or three theatres and the workmen working over there are not too many. It would not be difficult for any Manager to remember whether after discontinuing a particular workman he had or had not appointed one or more persons to do the same work. Much is sought to be made put by Mr. Cama, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, that the workman here was a temporary hand and was employed in a leave vacancy. Mr. Much is sought to be made put by Mr. Cama, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, that the workman here was a temporary hand and was employed in a leave vacancy. Mr. Cama based his argument on an admission given by the workman in the cross-examination that he was a temporary hand. It is quite possible that the workman in this case was a temporary hand but there is nothing on the record to show that he was appointed in a leave vacancy from time to time. As a matter of fact, the attendance-card of the workman which was produced in the Labour Court did not show that the workman was a temporary hand or was appointed in a leave vacancy. Mr. Cama also urged that in the cross-examination the workman admitted that he had worked as Booking Clerk from 1st October, 1979 to 31st December, 1979 with Badal Bijali Cinemas and again from 16th February, 1980 to 31st March, 1980 as a temporary hand which would show that the workman had not worked with Badal-Bijali Cinemas for six months as was held by the learned Labour Judge. It is no doubt true that the workman has given such admissions in the cross-examination. But it is important to note that his evidence in the examination-in-chief was very clear that he was in the employment of Badal-Bijali Cinemas from October, 1979 till 8th May, 1980 and for some time he was made to work in Barkha theatre. That evidence has not been demolished in any manner either in the cross-examination of the workman or in the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioners through Yatin Desai. As per Section 66 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 an employer is not permitted to dispense with the services of an employee who has been in continuous employment for less than a year but more than three months without giving such person at least fourteen days' notice in writing or wages in lieu of such notice. As has been pointed out earlier, the workman here had worked for nearly six months with the petitioners and it is an admitted fact that before his services were terminated he was not given fourteen days' notice nor was he paid wages in lieu of such a notice. His termination, therefore, was bad in law. As has been pointed out earlier, the workman here had worked for nearly six months with the petitioners and it is an admitted fact that before his services were terminated he was not given fourteen days' notice nor was he paid wages in lieu of such a notice. His termination, therefore, was bad in law. That being so, he was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. I, therefore, find no infirmity in the impugned award passed by the learned Labour Judge in granting the relief to the workman of reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. The award made by the learned Labour Judge by no stretch of imagination can be called perverse. 3. In this view of the matter, I find no substance in this writ petition. It fails and is rejected. Rule is accordingly discharged with costs of Rs. 1,000/-. 4. It has been brought to my notice that in Notice of Motion, bearing No. 1154 of 1985, taken out in this writ petition this Court had made an order on 12th July, 1985 calling upon the petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs. 14,000/- (fourteen thousand) in this Court with a further direction that the said amount be invested in any nationalised bank for a period of two years. Mrs. Mhatre, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-workman, urged that the workman be granted liberty to withdraw Rs. 14,000/- (fourteen thousand) along with interest accrued thereon. Mr. Cama submits that this indulgence asked for by Mrs. Mhatre may not be granted and if it is granted, this part of the judgment be stayed for two weeks. I am not able to persuade myself to accept the submission of Mr. Cama. The workman has been put of employment for long. There is nothing on the record nor has it been now pointed out to me that he has been gainfully employed any where. He needs money to survive. There is no reason not to allow him to withdraw Rs. 14,000/- (fourteen thousand). The workman is at liberty to withdraw the said amount of Rs. 14,000/- (fourteen thousand) forthwith. Prothonotary and Senior Master to act on minutes in this behalf.