JUDGMENT 1. - Both the counsel agree that the matter be heard finally on merits today. 2. The Public Works Department (for short P.W.D.), Sub-Division, Gangapur City, district Sawaimadhopur, represented through the Assistant Engineer, Petitioner No.2, has come up before this Court by way of instant writ petition challenging the impugned Award dated 31st August, 1994, of learned Judge, Labour Court, Bharatpur passed in L.C.R. No. 22/90 on the grounds interalia that the direction of the learned Labour Court, Bharatpur, as regards the reinstatement of the petitioner workman with back wages w.e.f. March 1987, is not justified on the grounds that the respondent workman had not completed 240 days of service for the period in dispute i.e. September, 1985 to 1st December, 1986 and hence not entitled to be reinstated in service with back wages. It has further been contended that the respondent No.1, voluntarily and wilfully abandoned the services of the petitioner department and stopped reporting for duty without conveying any prior intimation or obtaining sanction of competent authority of his unauthorised absence from duty and hence the Award of the learned Labour Court, Bharatpur, is not binding on the petitioners. It has further been contended in the Memo of grounds in support of the writ petition that as per the scheme of appointment of workmen on daily wages basis, their appointment is temporary subject to the availability of the budget and as soon as the requisite sanctioned budget is exhausted, their services would automatically stand terminated. 3. On behalf of workman, General Secretary, Employees Union has filed statement of claim and stated that he was initially appointed on the post of Beldar in September, 1985. His services were terminated on 1.12.1986 by verbal order. He has completed 240 days in a calendar year. Before termination, no notice was given to him nor he was paid any salary in lieu of notice or compensation. Provisions of Section 25-F of the Indusrial Disputes Act were not followed. Before termination no seniority list has been published and junior persons were working. Prior to termination no show cause notice was given. Rule 23 and 26 of the workcharge Rules were not followed. He is unemployed from 1.12.1986. Further he claimed under the Head of relief that his termination order be declared illegal and unjustified. His services should be deemed confirmed with all consequential benefits. 4. Prior to termination no show cause notice was given. Rule 23 and 26 of the workcharge Rules were not followed. He is unemployed from 1.12.1986. Further he claimed under the Head of relief that his termination order be declared illegal and unjustified. His services should be deemed confirmed with all consequential benefits. 4. Before dealing with the case on merits, I deem it appropriate to refer to other salient aspects of the matter. A reference was made by the State Government to Labour Court, Bharatpur, on a dispute raised by the respondent workman that his termination from the service was not legal and proper by the P.W.D., Sub-Division, Gangapur City, district Sawaimadhopur, where he was last posted on 1.12.1986 and hence he was entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. 5. On the aforesaid reference being made, the following legal proposition was drawn up, which was to be decided by the learned judge, Labour Court, Bharatpur: "Whether the termination ofthe services of workman Harsahai Bairwa, s/o Ravaria Beldar, represented through the Assistant Engineer, P.W.D. Sub-Division Gangapur City, Bharatpur, P.W.D. Employees Union, Gangapur City, is legal and justified? If not, to what relief if any the workman is entitled for?" 6. The claim of the workman was presented through the General Secretary of the P.W.D. Workers Unions, Gangapur City, (Sawaimadhopur), on 25.2.1991, with a prayer for reinstatement of the said workman on the ground that he had worked for more than 240 days during the period in dispute i.e. September 1985 to 1st December, 1996 (sic 1986) with all consequential benefits and that his services should be deemed to be continued without any break. The workman had also sought the relief as regards the payment of compensation in lieu of one month's notice, which was not served upon him prior to his impugned termination, which was not lawful being not in accordance with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act). It was further contended on behalf of the workman that the aforesaid provision is binding on the employer and he has no scope for relaxation of the said provision. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, examinect their rival claims and contentions and also the legal position on the subject. 8. It was further contended on behalf of the workman that the aforesaid provision is binding on the employer and he has no scope for relaxation of the said provision. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, examinect their rival claims and contentions and also the legal position on the subject. 8. Before I deal with the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties at bar, I deem it appropriate to refer to Section 25-F of the Act, which provides as under:- "25-F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen:- No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until (a) The workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of notice; (b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to 15 days average pay (for every completed year of continuous service) or any part thereof in excess of six months; and, (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government (or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.)" 9. From perusal of the above provision, it is apparent that it is mandatory on the employer that before retrenching the services of the workman, the workman has to be served with statutory one month's notice indicating the reasons for retrenchment and after the expiry of the stipulated Notice period of 30 days, the workman has to be paid adequate compensation as admissible in lieu of the notice. In case the workman expresses his intention to leave the services of the employer, it is also binding on the workman to indicate in writing his intention of leaving the services of the employer by giving notice of 30 days in the prescribed manner to the appropriate authority as specified in the notification in the official gazette. In case the workman expresses his intention to leave the services of the employer, it is also binding on the workman to indicate in writing his intention of leaving the services of the employer by giving notice of 30 days in the prescribed manner to the appropriate authority as specified in the notification in the official gazette. Hence, the irresistable conclusion which emerges on perusal of the relevant provisions of the Act is that the retrenchment of a workman shall be effected by the employer unless the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act have been complied with and in case of violation of the said provisions, it is always open to the workman to challenge his termination as unlawful and he can also be entitled to claim full back wages. The law does not permit the employer to dispense with the requirements of Section 25-F of the Act, which obviously would entitle the retrenched workman to claim continuity of service with full back wages and not merely one month's pay in lieu of notice of retrenchment and compensation. 10. It is thus obvious that burden of proof is on the employer to establish at the first instance that the workman had not worked for the requisite period of 240 days in one year and this burden can be discharged by way of tendering in evidence the relevant muster rolls, the daily attendance register and other relevant material which may be relevant and necessary for discharging the same in this regard. In case of unauthorised absence from duty the employer always has a right to terminate the services of the workman and further in case the behaviour and conduct of workman is unsatisfactory, it is always open to the employer to terminate his services but in any case before any such steps are taken by the employer it is binding on the employer to serve a statutory notice of 30 days as required by Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. Even in the case of unauthorised absence from duty the employer always has a right to terminate the services of such workman even though appointed on casual basis but if it is proved by the cogent, consistent and reliable evidence on the record that the workman has completed more that 240 days of service in a requisite year, he is entitled to claim the benefit of Section 25-F of the Act. My observations are duly fortified from the decisions of the Apex Court in the matters of Mohan Lal v. Management of M/S Bharat Electronics Ltd., (1981)3 SCC 225 , Robert D'Souza v. Executive Engineer, Southern Railway and another, (1982)1 SCC 645 and Management of Standard Motor Products of India Limited v. A. Parthasarathy and another, (1985)4 S.C.C. 78 . 11. In the matter of Mohan Lal v. Management of M/s Bharat Electronics Ltd. (supra), the question arose for consideration in appeal by the Apex Court was as to whether the retrenchment/termination simpliciter of services of a temporary workman not falling within the excepted or excluded categories mentioned in Section 2(00), of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would amount to 'retrenchment' if immediately preceding the date of termination of service, such workman acrually worked for not less than 240 days within a period of 12 months under the employer? It was held by the Apex Court that if it is proved on the record by positive and consistent evidence that the workman had rendered continuous service of not less than 240 days within a period of one year under the employer, he will be deemed to be in continuous service for one year as stipulated under Section 25-B(2) (a) (ii) of the Act and therefore, would be entitled to retrenchment compensation under Section 25-F of the Act. If the termination has been done without complying with Section 25-F, it would render the order of termination void ab initio entitling the said workman to a declaration for continuation in service with full back wages. 12. If the termination has been done without complying with Section 25-F, it would render the order of termination void ab initio entitling the said workman to a declaration for continuation in service with full back wages. 12. In Robert D'Souza v. Executive Engineer, Southern Railway and another (supra) the appellant who joined service in the Southern Railway, the question which had arisen in appeal before the Apex Court relating the dispute in claim petition of the said workman before the Labour Court who had rendered the services for about 20 years in the Construction Division of the Railways and in the course of his service his transfer was effected on several places, but he was denied the status of a temporary and/or regular workman and was treated as a daily-rated casual labour. The Apex Court while allowing the appeal of the appellant held that since the said workman had been deprived of the status of temporary Government servant on account of his discharge from service while his colleagues who were equally placed were regularised and conferred that status after the discharge of the appellant, impugned order of termination was quashed and set-aside with a direction to reinstate the workman back in service with all consequential benefits. On interpretation of the relevant provisions of Railway Establishment Manual Rule 2505, read with Section 25-F of the I.D.Act, it was observed by the Apex Court that even in the case of casual labour who had rendered continuous service for a period of one year or more to the Railways, can not be 'retrenched on any of the grounds without complying with the requirements of Section 25-F of the Act. 13. In the matter of Management of Standard Motor Products of India Ltd. v. A Parthasarathy and another (supra), the question which had arisen in appeal before the Apex Court was as to whether those workmen of the appellant Company who were on strike which was held illegal and in result of which the management had terminated the services of the workmen, were entitled to claim benefits of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act? The Apex Court while dismissing the appeal of the appellant company held as under: "Under Section 25-B(2), where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year he shall be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year, if the workman, during the period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less that two hundred and forty days. In the present case, even if the period of illegal strike is excluded, the number of days during which the workman actually worked under the employer would be found to be more than 240 days. That being so it has to be held that the workmen were in continuous service for a period of one year immediately before the date of closure." 14. The petitioner represented through the Secretary, P.W.D. Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur, was given full opportunity to contest the claim of the workman before the Labour Court and it was categorically stated on behalf of the petitioners that the respondent had not worked for the requisite period of 240 days and hence he was not entitled to claim the benefit of retrenchment - compensation or reinstatement in view of the alleged violation of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. But the said contention of the petitioners/non-claimants was overruled by the learned Labour Court on the ground that the evidence of Assistant Engineer, P.W.D. Sub-Division Gangapur City, district Sawaimadhopur, was not sufficient to establish their contention and on the contrary it was amply proved from the said evidence that the respondent workman had completed the requisite period of more than 240 days i.e. 267 and half day to establish that the workman was entitled to the benefit of the protection of the aforesaid provisions of the Act which was violated by the petitioners. It is in view of the evidence on record that the learned Judge, Bharatpur, had set-aside the impugned order of termination dated 1.12.1986, and had directed the reinstatement of the'respondent workman with all consequential benefits w.e.f. March, 1987. 15. Consequently I do not find any infirmity in the impugned Award dated 31.8.1994, which is subject matter of challenge in the present appeal. There is no illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error committed by the Labour Court. 16. 15. Consequently I do not find any infirmity in the impugned Award dated 31.8.1994, which is subject matter of challenge in the present appeal. There is no illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error committed by the Labour Court. 16. As a result of the above discussion I do not find any force in the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. The writ petition being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 17. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances that the writ petition has been pending in this Court since 4th April, 1995, and is being finally disposed of today, I deem it appropriate to direct that in the interest of justice the petitioners shall implement the directions contained in the impugned Award dated 31.8.1994, positively within a period of four months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order to the concerned department. 18. Keeping in view the heavy financial implications involved, I deem it appropriate to modify the impugned Award of the learned Judge, Labour Court, Bharatpur, by directing that instead of full back-wages, as directed to be paid to the respondent w.e.f. March, 1987 he shall only be entitled to claim 50% of the back wages as admissible to him till the date of his reinstatement. In the event of default on the part of the petitioners in not complying with the order, the respondent shall be entitled to claim interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from due date till payment. The Award of the Labour Court, Bharatpur, shall stand modified accordingly.Petition dismissed with direction. *******