Judgment S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 227 of the constitution the petitioner is praying for quashing and setting aside of the award dated march 28, 2000 of the Central Government industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jaipur in reference No. L-42012/12/99/ir (DU ). ( 2 ) THE facts of the case as to what the petitioner has stated in the petition are that central Government has made a reference of the industrial dispute under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub- section 2 (a) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the central Government Industrial Tribunal cum labour Court, Jaipur regarding the removal of the respondent No. 1 workman by the petitioner from the services. The Tribunal on receiving the statement of claim of the respondent No. 1 workman issued notice to the petitioner who filed detailed reply raising therein number of the preliminary objections. The affidavits have been filed by both the patties and cross examinations were made thereon. The Tribunal has framed as many as 8 issues in the case for adjudication of the dispute. Those issues framed by the Tribunal are given in para No. 3 of the petition. ( 3 ) IT is the grievance of the petitioner that the Tribunal is required to decide only the dispute which has been referred to it by the central Government. It cannot make the new dispute which is not referred. It has exceeded its jurisdiction by framing new issues. The dispute has also been contested on the merits of the matter. ( 4 ) UNDER the impugned award the tribunal held that the removal of the respondent No 1 workman from service attracted the provisions of Section 25-F of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the same has been made in violation of the said provision. As a result of this finding the Tribunal has given direction for the reinstatement of the respondent workman with full back wages from the date of removal from the services till the reinstatement with benefit of continuity in the service. The Tribunal has held that the respondent workman is not entitled for the regularisation of the services or permanency in the service only on account of not (sic) working for more than 240 days. The Tribunal has held that the respondent workman is not entitled for the regularisation of the services or permanency in the service only on account of not (sic) working for more than 240 days. The liberty has been given to the petitioner to dispense with the services of respondent workman after compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F the I. D. Act, 1947 in case the services are no more required. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is not the case of the termination of the services of the respondent workman but he himself has abandoned the services. It has next been contended that the respondent workman has not completed 240 days of service in the 12 calendar months and wrongly it has been taken to be a case of termination of services of the respondent workman in violation of Section 25-F of the i. D. Act, 1947. Lastly it is submitted that it is admittedly a case of engagement of respondent workman on daily wages by the petitioner and even if it is taken to be a case of termination of services in violation of Section 25-F of the I. D. Act, 1947 the award of the reinstatement made by the Tribunal is wholly unjustified. ( 6 ) MR. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, on the other hand, supported the award made by the Tribunal. He also placed reliance on two decisions of the Apex Court in support of his contention given in the case of p. G. I of Medical Education and Research, chandigarh v. Raj Kumar AIR 2001 SC 479 : 2001-I- LLJ-546 and Hindustan Tin Works private Ltd. v. The Employees of Hindustan Tin works Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. AIR 1979 SC 75 : 1979 (2) SCC 80 : 1978-II-LLJ-474. ( 7 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The writ petition, its enclosures, reply to the petition and the rejoinder have also been looked into. I also called the original file of the case from the petitioner and gone through that also. ( 8 ) ON the record of this case I find the application of respondent workman dated April 29, 1998 which reads as under: dated : 29. 4. 98"to, the Director directorate of Millets Development r. N. 710, Mini Sectt. I also called the original file of the case from the petitioner and gone through that also. ( 8 ) ON the record of this case I find the application of respondent workman dated April 29, 1998 which reads as under: dated : 29. 4. 98"to, the Director directorate of Millets Development r. N. 710, Mini Sectt. Jaipur - 302 016 respected Sir, this is to humbly submit that I was engaged as a daily wage Typist (both English and hindi) and Stenographer (English) since June 4, 1996 and rendered my service in your directorate upto the month of March 1998. In view of the above, I would request you to kindly issue an experience certificate in my favour yours faithfully, sd/-vijay Sharma s/o. V. D. Sharma 1-N-8, Jawahar Nagar jaipur. " ( 9 ) THIS application is very clear, specific and unambiguous. This application leaves no doubt in the mind of the Court that it is an application voluntarily submitted by the respondent workman. From the contents of this application it is clear that the workman has claimed certificate for his services rendered with the petitioner upto the month of March, 1998. He has not stated in this application that his services were terminated illegally etc. From the original record of the case I find that the petitioner has not terminated services of the workman. The note dated April 1, 1998 is relevant and therefrom I find that the respondent workman has expressed his positive reluctance to continue in the service of the petitioners and accordingly from April 1, 1998 he was not retained (sic) in the services. I find that the Ministry of Finance of the Government of India under the letter dated February 26, 1990 given out the mandate to all the offices not to appoint on daily wage for group C post or otherwise. This may be relevant document where the order is to be made for the reinstatement in case this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has terminated the services of the respondent workman. The learned Tribunal has decided this point under the point No. 6 and the finding given by it on this point is wholly perverse. It has not discussed the evidence of the parties and the relevant documents produced on the record. The learned Tribunal has decided this point under the point No. 6 and the finding given by it on this point is wholly perverse. It has not discussed the evidence of the parties and the relevant documents produced on the record. The Tribunal has to give decision on point No. 6 after considering the evidence of both the parties and to reach to the conclusion based on the appreciation thereof who is correct in his say. That has not been done and in very slipshod manner and by passing a very cryptic order point No. 6 has been decided in favour of the respondent workman. ( 10 ) IT is not in dispute that from April 1, 1998 the respondent workman was not in service. In case it would have been a realcase of oral termination of services on very next day he should have raised his voice. That Has not been done. Then his conduct comes and to be considered as what it transpires from the application filed by him on April 29, 1998. In this application as said earlier and is to be stated at the cost of repetition the respondent workman has not made any grievance that his services were terminated or that he has to be taken back in the service by giving fresh engagement etc. The plain and simple request was only to give him certificate for his services he rendered to the petitioner. From this application it can be reasonably presumed, assumed and inferred that the petitioner has not terminated the services of respondent workman but he himself voluntarily abandoned the same. The respondent workman was the daily wager and there is all the possibility that he would have got the employment elsewhere. Otherwise also it is a case where decision of the Ministry of Finance would have been known by the respondent workman that his services with the petitioner may not be continued long and at any point of time the same is likely to be terminated, he would have for keeping the good relations abandoned the services. The respondent workman has raised the dispute on May 27, 1998 that is after about one month and 27 days of his alleged termination of services. This is not a long and serious delay but this gives out that possibly at a later point of time under the good advice of his friends etc. The respondent workman has raised the dispute on May 27, 1998 that is after about one month and 27 days of his alleged termination of services. This is not a long and serious delay but this gives out that possibly at a later point of time under the good advice of his friends etc. the respondent workman would have thought of to involve and drag the petitioner in litigation and if ultimately succeeds in the matter he may get the benefit of salary etc. In the facts of this case it was not a bona fide dispute raised by respondent workman. If it would have been really a case of oral termination of services by the Director of the petitioner he would not have waited for. Even if he could have waited 1 appreciate but immediate action has not been taken by him and whatever action has been taken in which also he has not made any complaint that his services have been terminated mala fide. ( 11 ) TAKING into consideration all facts of the case on which there is no dispute I am satisfied that the learned Tribunal has committed a serious illegality in deciding the point No. 6 in favour of respondent workman. It is a case though the respondent workman has completed 240 days services in 12 calendar months but he was not sent to home by termination thereof but he himself has abandoned the services and no question does arise for giving him any relief in the present case of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity in service. ( 12 ) AS a result of the aforesaid discussion, this petition succeeds and same is allowed and the award dated March 28, 2000 is quashed and set aside. No order as to costs. .