JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.3.90, passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellants in part and modified the Award to the effect that only half of the back wages from the date of termination upto the date of re-engagement of the workman shall be payable to the workman concerned. 2. Ram Singh S/o Shri Bhullan was appointed as the casual labour by the Permanent Way Inspector (P.W.I.), Northern Railway, Bikaner, on daily wages basis on 10.1.76. He continued in service upto 14.7.78. The Railway Casual Labours Union raised an industrial dispute by way of serving a notice dated 2.3.84. Conciliation proceedings were taken, which ended in failure and the Conciliation Officer submitted its failure report. The Central Government thereafter referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Central Labour Tribunal, Jaipur : "Whether the D.R.M., Railway, Bikaner and the Assistant Engineer, Bikaner are justified in not complying with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act while terminating the services of Ram Singh S/o Bhullan, the casual worker under P.W.I., Bikaner ?" If not, what relief Ram Singh is entitled to ?" The reference was registered and the notices were issued after the receipt of the dispute, to the respective parties. The Union, on behalf of Ram Singh, filed the Statement of Claim. It is stated in the Claim petition that Shri Ram Singh was appointed on 10.1.76 in the Office of the Permanent Way Inspector, Northern Railway, Bikaner, on daily wages basis. On 1.8.77, he was appointed on the post of Khalasi and continued on this post upto 14.7.78 and after completing continuous 240 days in a year, he became an 'industrial workman'. The services of Ram Singh were verbally terminated by the Permanent Way Inspector on 15.7.78, which is clearly illegal. The termination of the services of Ram Singh was made without following the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') and, therefore, it was illegal and falls within the definition of 'retrenchment' and Ram Singh is, therefore, entitled for reinstatement with all the back wages. The termination of the services of Ram Singh was made without following the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') and, therefore, it was illegal and falls within the definition of 'retrenchment' and Ram Singh is, therefore, entitled for reinstatement with all the back wages. The claim of the Union, on behalf of Ram Singh, was contested by the employer and it was stated in the reply that Ram Singh was appointed as a casual labour on 10.1.76 in the Office of the Permanent Way Inspector where he worked upto 8.7.77 and he did not work for more than 240 days in a calendar year. It was, also, submitted that his services were not terminated on 15.7.78 by the verbal order. The other allegations made in the Claim Petition were, also, denied and it was submitted that Ram Singh was engaged on casual nature of the work under the 'Temporary Labour Allocation (T.L.A.) and these arrangements were made for casual nature of the work and on fixed term duration. The applicant was engaged on temporary labour arrangement basis which last upto 14.7.78 and his appointment was for a fixed term and, therefore, it came to an end after the expiry of the Temporary Labour Allocation. After 14.7.78 Ram Singh himself did not turn-up despite the fact that fresh sanction for T.L.A. had been received and other persons, who reported themselves on duty, were allowed to work and as applicant Ram Singh did not turn-up, he could not be given appointment. The workman, in support of his claim, filed his own affidavit and he was cross-examined, while on behalf of the employer the affidavit of one Sanwar Lal was produced, who was, also, cross-examined. The learned Judge of the Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, by its Award dated 21.7.88, accepted the claim of the workman and held that the termination of the services of casual labour Ram Singh with effect from 15.7.78 was illegal and falls within the definition of 'retrenchment' and he should be reinstated with effect from 15.7.78 with all the back wages upto 30.10.84. It was further held that he will be entitled for the same pay which he was getting on 15.7.78 and will be entitled for all the consequential benefits, namely, dearness allowance, arrears of pay etc. It was further held that he will be entitled for the same pay which he was getting on 15.7.78 and will be entitled for all the consequential benefits, namely, dearness allowance, arrears of pay etc. Aggrieved with the Award dated 21.7.88 passed by the learned Judge of the Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, the employer preferred a writ petition before this Court. The writ petition, filed by the petitioner-appellant was partly allowed only to the extent that the workman will be entitled to half of the back wages and the rest of the award was affirmed. It is against this judgment, passed by the learned Single Judge, that the appellant-petitioner has preferred this appeal. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the services of Ram Singh were never terminated by the appellant, rather he himself remained absent from the duty after 15.7.78, the date upto which he was appointed, though the appellant received the sanction for Temporary Labour Allocation after 15.7.78, also, but as the workman Ram Singh did not report on duty, he could not be given appointment and as soon as he raised the dispute and served the notice and approached the appellant, he was given appointment with effect from 1.10.84 and since then he is continuously working with the employer. It is, therefore, clear that the workman himself avoided the work and his services were not terminated. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the claim petition, filed by the workman, deserves to be dismissed as he approached the Tribunal after the lapse of 51/2 years and the learned Single Judge of this Court was not justified in not taking into consideration this aspect of the case on the ground that this point was never agitated before the Tribunal. It is, also, contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge was not justified in awarding 30% of the back wages to the workman due to the delay in approaching the Government for making a reference and without any evidence on record that during this period he was not gainfully employed elsewhere. It is, also, contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge was not justified in awarding 30% of the back wages to the workman due to the delay in approaching the Government for making a reference and without any evidence on record that during this period he was not gainfully employed elsewhere. The learned counsel for the respondent-workman, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and submitted that once the termination of the services of the workman was found to be illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act, the natural consequences will be that the workman should have been reinstated in service with full back wages while the learned Single Judge has awarded only 50% of the back wages to him. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the workman-respondent has placed reliance over : Narottam Chopra v. State of Raj., 1989 SCC (L&S) 565. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-workman that aggrieved with the judgment dated 20.3.90, passed by the learned Single Judge, the respondent-workman, also, filed an appeal before this Court, in which the Division Bench of this Court, while dismissing the appeal, held that "the award of 50% of the back wages by the learned Single Judge was justified." The learned counsel for the respondent-workman, therefore, submits that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge does not require any interference. 4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties." 5. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that Ram Singh himself abandoned the service and his services were not terminated. It is not in dispute that the workman was initially appointed on 10.1.76 and he continued in service upto 14.7.78 and thereafter he was not taken on duty. The case of the appellant is that the workman was appointed on Temporary Labour Allotment and he never reported on duty from 15.7.78 though the fresh sanction for T.L.A. was received by the appellant and the other persons were appointed. The learned Judge of the Central Industrial Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence produced by the respective parties, case to the conclusion that the workman did not abandon the service, rather he was not taken on duty by the employer. The learned Judge of the Central Industrial Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence produced by the respective parties, case to the conclusion that the workman did not abandon the service, rather he was not taken on duty by the employer. The same view has been taken by the learned Single Judge. These are purely findings of facts arrived at by the Tribunal as well as by the learned Single Judge on the proper appreciation of the evidence available on record. The workman worked completely for more than 240 days in a calendar year. The appointment of the workman was not for a fixed term. At the time of termination of his service, neither any notice of one month nor the pay in lieu of one month's notice was given to the workman, as required under sub-section (a) of Section 25-F nor any retrenchment compensation was paid to him, as required under sub-section (b) of Section 25-F of the Act. The appellant has, therefore, terminated the service of the workman without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act and, therefore, the termination of the services of workman Ram Singh clearly falls within the definition of 'retrenchment' and the learned Industrial Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge were, therefore, justified in holding that the termination of the services of the workman was illegal. The judgment, passed by the learned Single Judge, on this point, therefore, does not require any interference. 6. The next contention, raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner, is that the workman through his union, has approached the Central Government for making a reference after the lapse of more than four years and, therefore, the Central Government was not justified in referring the dispute after the long delay. This point was never agitated before the learned Judge of the Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur. If this point would have been agitated before the Tribunal then the workman would have been able to explain the delay and the Tribunal would have given its finding on this aspect of the matter. Since the question of delay was never agitated by the employer before the Tribunal, the learned Single Judge was, therefore, justified in rejecting this contention. The order, passed by the learned Single Judge on this point, also, does not require any interference. 7. Since the question of delay was never agitated by the employer before the Tribunal, the learned Single Judge was, therefore, justified in rejecting this contention. The order, passed by the learned Single Judge on this point, also, does not require any interference. 7. The last contention, raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Single Judge was not justified in awarding 50% of the back wages to the applicant. It has been laid down by the Supreme Court in : Prathma Bank, Head Office, Moradabad v. Vijay Kumar Goel and Anr., 1989 SCC (L&S) 664 - the judgment on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondent-workman- that "in a suit filed by an employee challenging the termination of his service by an instrumentality of the 'State' (Regional Rural Bank here), the Court can pass a decree for his reinstatement in service with consequential benefits if the termination is found to be illegal." In the present case, it has been found that the termination of the services of workman Ram Singh was illegal and the termination order was passed in contravention of the provisions of Section 25-F (a) and (b) of the Act but the learned Single Judge, while awarding the compensation, took into consideration the delay in approaching the Central Government for referring the dispute and, therefore, awarded the back wages only to the extent of 50%. The Division Bench, in the appeal filed by the workman, upheld the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. In Ram Singh v. Divisional Personnel Officer, Nr. Rly., Bikaner and Ors., D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 110 of 1990 no notice was issued to the employer and the case was decided ex-parte and while deciding the appeal, the Division Bench never held that determination of 50% back wages by the learned Single Judge was correct. While dismissing the appeal filed by the workman, it was observed by the Division Bench of this Court that while awarding the back wages, the factum like gainful employment can certainly be taken into consideration and the learned Single Judge fell persuaded by the appellant's conduct to award back wages to the extent of 50%. There is no finding arrived at by the Division Bench that the workman is entitled for 50% of the back wages. There is no finding arrived at by the Division Bench that the workman is entitled for 50% of the back wages. The Division Bench did not find any illegality, irregularity or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 8. The services of the workman were terminated with effect from 15.7.78 but the workman, through the union, raised the industrial dispute by serving the notice on 2.3.84 and he kept silence for more than five years. The workman, in his claim petition filed before the Tribunal, has, also, not stated that during this period, i.e., since 15.7.78 till he was re-appointed, was not in the gainful employment elsewhere. The delay in approaching the Central Government and raising the industrial dispute and the question of gainful employment of the workman during the aforesaid period, are the most relevant considerations for awarding the relief of back wages. The workman raised the industrial dispute and approached the appellant after raising the industrial dispute and as soon as he approached the appellant, he was re-employed on 1.10.84 and since then he is in continuous service of the appellant. In view of these facts that there is a delay by the workman in raising the industrial dispute, not furnishing the information that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere during this period and the re-employment of the workman by the employer as soon as the dispute was raised and before the reference being made to the Tribunal, the applicant is not entitled for any back wages but he is entitled for all the other consequential benefits connected with the reinstatement, namely, continuity of service, seniority etc. 9. In the result, the appeal, filed by the appellant-petitioner, is partly allowed. The judgment passed by the learned Single Judge affirming the judgment passed by the learned Judge of the Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, is maintained with this modification only that the workman Ram Singh will not be entitled for any back wages and the rest part of the judgment is maintained. The parties are left to bear their own costs.Special appeal partly allowed. *******