Honble VERMA, J.–This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the Labour Court, Ajmer dated 17.2.1997 by which order, the Labour Court had held that termination of services of non-petitioner No.1 by Principal Chief Conservator of Forest on 1.4.1995 was not legal and reinstated him with 25% of the back wages. The Labour Court had found as finding of fact that the non-petitioner No.1 was employed with the petitioner as daily wager, but despite the fact that he had been retrenched in accordance with law by awarding retrenchment compensation, but his juniors, S/Shri Jairam, Madan Lal, Narayan, Lala, Kailash, Radha Krishna were retained in the service at the time of termination of service of the non-petitioner No.1 Not only the juniors were retained, but even those persons had been made semi- permanent. (2). It was also held that even after termination of services of the petitioner, number of appointments were made. No justification had been given by the petitioner in the Labour Court as to why the juniors were retained and the non-petitioner workman was removed from the service. In my opinion, being finding of fact and on the principle of ``Last Come First Go" , it cannot be said that the Labour Court had acted illegally in passing the impugned award. I fully agree with the reasons given by the Labour Court. I do not find any reason for interfering in the writ petition. (3). The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Labour Court had gone beyond the order of reference in holding that the order of termination is had because of the reason of violation of Section 25-G of the I.D. Act. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no merit. The matter was referred for adjudication to determine the legality and justification of the order of termination. The order of termination can be assailed on the ground of Natural Justice, violating the principles of seniority or even on violation of Section 25-H of the I.D. Act. In the present case, the non-petitioner had stated in the claim petition that the order of termination was bad because of violation of Section 25-F and 25-G of I.D. Act. He had also given certain names in the claim petition. (4). In the present case, the non-petitioner had stated in the claim petition that the order of termination was bad because of violation of Section 25-F and 25-G of I.D. Act. He had also given certain names in the claim petition. (4). A bare reading of the relief clause itself shows that the Labour Court has declared the termination to be illegal which was subject matter of the reference and it cannot be said that the labour has travelled beyond the terms of reference. (5). There is no merit in the writ petition. (6). The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.