JUDGMENT 1. 1. These two writ petitions arise out of Award dated 29.4.1997 passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Jaipur in LCR 228/93, whereby the learned Judge held that workman Shravanlal's service were terminated illegally w.e.f. 1.11.1991 and that there was violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the workman was ordered to be reinstated in service but he was allowed back wage @ Rs. 1,000/- p.a. from 1.9.1994 till 29.4.1997 and thereafter he was granted wages as per the Service Rules. The Workman has filed writ petition No. 4572/97. Aggrieved by the Award, whereby he has been granted back wages @ Rs. 1,000/- p.a. only while the department has filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 90/98 challenging the validity of the Award. 2. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant record in extenso. Briefly, the relevant facts necessary for disposal of these writ petitions are that workman Sharvanlal was appointed as helper on daily wages from 16.1.1989 by the Superintending Engineer, PHED District Circle Gandhinagar, Jaipur, where he continued to work but his wages were being paid by the AEN PHED Sub Division Dudu (respondent No. 3), his services were extended upto 7.3.1989 by the Superintending Engineer PHED. However, his services were transferred to the office of the Assistant Engineer Sub-Division 1, Sanganer (respondent No. 4) w.e.f 28.2.1989, where he worked upto 31.10.1989. It is alleged that on 1.1 1.1989, his services were terminated verbally on the basis of direction issued by the respondent No. 4. It is further alleged that workman Sharvanlal continuously perform his work for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding his retrenchment, which was not done in accordance with provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Therefore, his retrenchment was illegal and bad in law. The workman raised a dispute about illegal termination of his services before the Joint Labour Commissioner, Jaipur Region, who after necessary conciliation proceedings submitted a failure report (Ann. 2) dated 30.11.1992, whereupon that State Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court. 3. Therefore, his retrenchment was illegal and bad in law. The workman raised a dispute about illegal termination of his services before the Joint Labour Commissioner, Jaipur Region, who after necessary conciliation proceedings submitted a failure report (Ann. 2) dated 30.11.1992, whereupon that State Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court. 3. The P.H.E.D in its reply before the Labour Court asserted that the workman was working in different sub-divisions; that he was not in continuous service for a period of 240 days in a calendar year preceding his termination and that as he remained absent since 1.11.1989, he had wilfully absented himself and as such his termination was not illegal. It was admitted that no notice was given to the workman before his termination. It was asserted that the workman despite notice dated 14.2.1992 did not report on duty. 4. In support of his statement of claim, the workman filed his affidavit. However, on behalf of the department, no counter affidavit was filed nor the workman was cross examined. The department did also not adduce any evidence. The learned Judge, Labour Court disbelieved the assertion of the department that the workman had wilfully absented himself and held that the termination of the workman was against mandatory provision of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and passed the impugned Award. 5. Heard and perused the relevant record. 6. Shri Muninder Singh, learned counsel for the Department strenuously canvassed that the workman worked under different employers for less than 240 days and did not complete 240 days in a year as such provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable. I am not at all impressed by this argument, because the workman was initially appointed by the Superintending Engineer, PHED District Circle, Jaipur and was subsequently transferred in Dudu Sub Division and thereafter in Sanganer Sub Division I, PHED, which are within the District Circle of SE PHED, Jaipur. Thus the employer for the workman was not different. The Department did not adduce any evidence nor cross examined the workman. Hence there is no valid reason to disbelieve deposition of the workman through his uncontroverted affidavit. The work assigned to the workman was not of a temporary nature and the same is still continuing. The Department did not even care to file the alleged notice dated 14.2.1992 directing the workman to report on duty. Hence there is no valid reason to disbelieve deposition of the workman through his uncontroverted affidavit. The work assigned to the workman was not of a temporary nature and the same is still continuing. The Department did not even care to file the alleged notice dated 14.2.1992 directing the workman to report on duty. In such circumstances, there is no valid reason to disbelieve sworn testimony of workman-Sharvan- lal that his services were verbally terminated on 1.1 1.1989. There is no dispute that the department before retrenching the workman neither gave one month's notice nor notice pay nor retrenchment. Therefore, it is a clear cut case of violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and the retrenchment of workman is illegal nonest and null & void. The learned Labour Court has, therefore, rightly held that the services of the workman were terminated illegally and has not committed any error in directing for latter's reinstatement in service. 7. As regards back wages, the learned Labour Court has held that since the workman submitted his claim before the Court after four years of his retrenchment, he was not entitled to any back wages and that he was entitled to back wages @ Rs. 1000/- p.a. from the date the reference was made by the State Government to the Labour Court. However, a careful perusal of the failure report submitted by the Conciliation Officer (Ann.2) indicates that the workman had raised the dispute about illegal termination of his service on 18.4.1992, the conciliation officer submitted his failure report on 30.11.1992 and thereupon the State Government referred the matter to the Judge of Labour Court on 1.9.1993. Thus the workman had raised the dispute without undue delay. There was no allegation on behalf of the department that the workman after termination of service was gainfully employed elsewhere. 8. In Manorma Verma v. State of Bihar, 1994 (Supp.) (3) SCC 671 , the Apex Court has held that once the termination of a workman is found to be illegal and he is ordered to be reinstated in service, then consequential order of grant of back wages must follow unless there reasons justifying a departure from normal order. 8. In Manorma Verma v. State of Bihar, 1994 (Supp.) (3) SCC 671 , the Apex Court has held that once the termination of a workman is found to be illegal and he is ordered to be reinstated in service, then consequential order of grant of back wages must follow unless there reasons justifying a departure from normal order. Since there is no evidence that the workman was gainfully employed elsewhere during the period of termination, in my considered opinion, the workman is entitled to back wages from the date of his termination till his reinstatement in service. Therefore, the impugned Award to the extent whereby the workman has been allowed back wages only @ Rs. 1000/- per annum is patently bad, improper and unjust and as such, the same cannot be sustained. 9. In the premises of the above discussion, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 90/98 filed by the PHED is hereby dismissed. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4572/97 filed by workman Sharvanlal is allowed and the Award dated 29.4.1997, passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Jaipur is modified and it is directed that the workman be reinstated in service with full back wages from 18.4.1992 and that he shall also be entitled to interest @ 12% p.a. on the unpaid back wages from 18.4.1992 till realisation thereof. The Department is further directed to reinstate the workman- Sharvanlal in service immediately and pay his back wages with interest within a period of three months from today.Award modified and and petition of management dismissed. *******