Honble PARIHAR, J.–Petitioner has challenged the awards dated 5.6.1997 passed by Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer, passed separately in case of two workmen, Sri Kamal Kishore Sharma and Sri Kailash Chand Panwar in the above writ petitions. (2). Both the concerned workmen in the above writ petitions came to be appointed in the petitioner samiti somewhere in the year 1993. However, their services were terminated in the month of September, 1995. On a dispute been raised before the Conciliation Officer, the same was referred to Labour Court for adjudication by the State Government. (3). The Labour Court after taking evidence of both the sides in both the cases, held that termination of services of the concerned workmen was not legal and justified and, as such, they were entitled for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. (4). Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the cases has assailed the respective awards on the ground that both the concerned workmen were not in regular appointment of the petitioner-samiti and since it was only a contractual appointment, the petitioner-samiti was not required to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act in view of exception clause u/S. 2(oo)(bb). (5). Mr. Mathur has also submitted that petitioner-samiti is not covered by the definition of ``industry and, as such, provisions of the Act of 1947 are not applicable and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to decide the matter in the present case. (6). Mr. Mathur has further submitted that the Labour Court was also not justified in awarding full back wages to the concerned workmen in the facts and circumstances of the present case. (7). Mr. Mathur has relied upon a recent judgment of Apex Court in the case of Himanshu Kumar Vidhyarthi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (1) and has sub- mitted that since even the appointment of the concerned workmen was not a regular appointment, the provisions of Section 25-F are not attracted. (8). After having carefully gone through the entire material on record and also the awards passed by the Labour Court, I find that none of the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner merits acceptance. (9). (8). After having carefully gone through the entire material on record and also the awards passed by the Labour Court, I find that none of the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner merits acceptance. (9). So far as contention of counsel for the petitioner that petitioner samiti is not an industry as defined under Section 2(j) of the Act is concerned, no material has been placed on record to substantiate the above contention. It is not clear as to whether the petitioner raised any such objection before the Labour Court and led evidence in this regard. However, in view of decision of Apex Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. A. Rajjak (2), I am of the view that the objection raised by the petitioner at this stage does not hold good. (10). Admittedly, the termination was made without compliance of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act in so far as none-payment of retrenchment compensation is concerned. Before Labour Court, the petitioner samiti though had taken a plea that compliance of Section 25-F has been made, but even one months notice pay was not paid in full as per finding of the Labour Court. Since admittedly, no retrenchment compensation was paid or even offered prior to termination of service of the concerned workmen, the termination automatically stood vitiated and natural consequences will be that the concerned workmen will be held entitled for reinsta- tement with full back wages. (11). As far plea of contractual employment is concerned, no material has been placed either before the Labour Court or even before this Court to show that the concerned workmen were appointed on contract basis for any specific work or specific period. Since the matter was referred to a competent Court constituted under a Statute, it was for the petitioner to lead necessary evidence in this regard to substantiate that contention. In the facts and circumstances of the present case since there is a finding of fact arrived at by the Labour Court on the basis of evidence on record, I find no error or illegality in the award so as to call for any interference of this Court under its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. (12). In the facts and circumstances of the present case since there is a finding of fact arrived at by the Labour Court on the basis of evidence on record, I find no error or illegality in the award so as to call for any interference of this Court under its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. (12). As regards back wages, there has been no plea even on part of the petitioner samiti before the Labour Court that both the concerned workmen were gainfully employed somewhere, what to say any evidence in this regard, as such, the discretion used by the Labour Court in awarding back wages in the facts and circumstances of the present case was legal and justified. (13). So far as judgment of Apex Court in Himanshu Kumar Vidhyarthis case is concerned, the facts were entirely different in that case and the observations were made by the Apex Court in the context of facts of that particular case only. (14). In the present case, since a competent Court duly constituted under a Statute, has decided the matter after considering the entire evidence adduced before it and came to a finding, to my opinion, the judgment of Himanshu Kumar Vidhyarthis case is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Moreso, because in that case the writ petition was filed directly before the High Court under Article 226 on the plea that the termination of services was arbitrary. However, in the present case, there is a proper adjudication by a competent Court under provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 after taking evidence of both the parties. (15). Accordingly, I find no merit in the above writ petitions and the same are dismissed summarily.