JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against the award passed by the Labour Court dated 6th March, 1984 (Annx. 3). 2. As stated in the petition, respondent No. 1 was initially appointed as a work-charge employee on 1.7.1975. He discharged his duties from 1.7.1975 to 7.5.1981 and on 7.5.1981 the petitioner was removed from service. A claim petition was filed in the Labour Court and it was found that the respondent continuously worked with effect from 1.7.1975 to 7.5.1981 and further completed 240 days continuously in a year and that he comes within the purview of section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and, therefore, the termination could only be made after compliance of the provisions contained in section 25-F of the Act. It was found that no such compliance was made. No notice of termination or his services nor the salary in lieu of notice was paid. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that respondent No. 1 was only a work-charge employee and his services were purely temporary in nature and he was engaged in the seasonal work as per budget. It has been further pressed in service that the petitioner never performed his duties continuously upto 7.5.1981 and was absent on a number of occasions. It is further urged that the respondent himself did not joint the duty and left the service without any notice to the department and that he was neither removed nor retrenched. It is stated that since there was no work with the department after 30th April, 1981, therefore, he was asked to go and was paid all wages. The learned State counsel argues that the award has been made without application of mind and the Labour Court has erred in holding that no compliance to the provisions of the Act was made by the petitioner. It is also said that the petitioner never completed 240 days in a year. The petitioner under no circumstances was entitled to get the benefit under section 25-F of the Act. Reference is also made to the report of the Range Officer that the work of respondent No. 1 was not found satisfactory. 4. It is also said that the petitioner never completed 240 days in a year. The petitioner under no circumstances was entitled to get the benefit under section 25-F of the Act. Reference is also made to the report of the Range Officer that the work of respondent No. 1 was not found satisfactory. 4. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 has urged that respondent No. 1 was unlawfully removed from the service and that a finding of fact has been recorded by the Labour Court that the respondent has continuously worked from 1.7.1975 to 7.5.1981 and further finding of fact has been returned that he completed 240 days in the year and would be falling in the permanent category. Under proviso to Section 2 (oo) of the Act, neither any notice was given nor any compensation was allowed before the services were put to an end and that the action of the petitioner was hit by Section 25 of the Act. The learned counsel further vehemently argues that on findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court there was hardly any scope for interference in the writ jurisdiction. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the petition and the reply as well as on careful perusal of the impugned order I do not find that it suffers from any illegality or infirmity. 6. It has been found that the work of the respondent No. 1 was satisfactory and that there was a breach of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act and that no notice was given nor any compensation was allowed before terminating the services of the respondent and that the order of removal has been rightly set aside. The Labour Court is perfectly justified in awarding benefits to respondent No. 1 in granting him back wages as well as reinstatement and continuity in the length of service. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to persuade me to take a different view than the one arrived at by the Labour Court. 7. In view of what has been said above, the writ petition is wholly without merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs. *******