JUDGMENT 1. 1. The appellant is University which has felt aggrieved by the judgment and order rendered by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4742/1988, on 20.3.91. 2. Respondent-workman filed a petition challenging the legality and validity of the action of terminating his services with effect from 12.10.1988. The respondent- workman was engaged by the appellant University to do certain work with regard to the mark-sheet and enrolment form. Initially he was paid on piece rate basis and the total emoluments per month came to about Rs. 350/-. He was engaged on intermittent basis with certain breaks in between. He was again employed from March, 1988 onwards upto October 12, 1988, for a period of 211 days on the monthly pay of Rs. 750/- (Seven hundred & fifty only). After 12.10.88, his services were not extended. Hence, the workman filed a petition challenging the legality and validity of the action of terminating his services and prayed for reinstatement in service with full back wages. 3. Appellant University appeared and resisted the petition on facts as well as on law points. 4. Learned Single Judge held that even while the workman was working on piece rated basis, his services were required to be taken into consideration for the purposes of provisions of See. 25-F of the Act. In view of the admitted position on facts, learned Single Judge clubbed together the days of service rendered by the workman on piece rated basis when he received about Rs. 350/- per month and also the days of service rendered by him later on commencing from March, 1988 till 12.10.88 when he received Rs. 750/- per month. On this basis, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the respondent workman had put in continuous service of one year as defined under section 25-B of the Act. In other words, the workman had put in service of more than 240 days, in fact about 354 days of service. Therefore, he was entitled to the protection of Section 25-F of the Act. In the instant case, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were not complied with. Moreover, when over 70 persons were sought to be employed, at that time also, the petitioner's case was not considered. Therefore, there was breach of the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act. In the instant case, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were not complied with. Moreover, when over 70 persons were sought to be employed, at that time also, the petitioner's case was not considered. Therefore, there was breach of the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act. In view of this position, learned Single Judge allowed the petition and directed the workman to be treated under employment for the purpose of continuation of service from 30th October, 1988 till the date of judgment i.e. March 20, 1991. Learned Single Judge did not grant back wages but left the question to he agitated by the workman by way of application under section 33(c)(2) of the Act. It is against this judgment and order that the special appeal is filed, by the University. 5. Contention of the appellant is that in cases of some other employees, learned Single Judge had not granted the relief of reinstatement and the matter was carried before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court ordered that compensation of Rs. 50.000/- be paid and did not grant the relief of reinstatement. Therefore, it is submitted that in this case also, similar course should be followed. We are afraid, we cannot accept this submission. In the instant case, the workman has been reinstated pursuant to the judgment and order rendered by the learned Single Judge on 20.3.91. We do not see any infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge so as to call for interference in exercise of powers under section 18, Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949. There is finding of fact that the workman had put in continuous service of more than 240 days and that there was contravention of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act and also that of Section 25-G of the Act. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-workman submitted that the direction given by the learned Single Judge to the effect that the workman should invoke the provisions of Section 33(C)(2) of the Act and claim recovery of the back wages may be set aside and this Court should decide the question of back wages. In the instant case, we do not think it proper to modify this direction of the learned Single Judge inasmuch as the workman has not filed an appeal against the said direction. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. In the instant case, we do not think it proper to modify this direction of the learned Single Judge inasmuch as the workman has not filed an appeal against the said direction. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******