ORDER V. Gopala Gowda, J.—The Petitioners are challenging the legality and validity of the impugned award at Annexure-A passed by the Labour Court, Gulbarga directing reinstatement of Respondent-workman with 25% backwages from 26.2.1998 till the date of reinstatement. 2. The contention of the Petitioners is that the Labour Court has not recorded a finding that the workman worked continuously for 240 days in a calendar year as required under Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The other contention raised is that the termination was in the year 1987 but reference of the dispute was made by the Government in the year 1998 after a lapse of 10 years and hence the Labour Court ought not to have ordered reinstatement with 25% backwages. It is the contention of Petitioners that the impugned award is contrary to the judgment reported in The Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K.P. Madhavankutty and Others, AIR 2000 SC 839 which has been followed by the Division Bench of this Court. 3. I have perused the impugned award. The Labour Court found that the workman examined himself and stated on oath that he had worked continuously from 1.1.1984 to 30.4.1987. It was held that in the cross-examination nothing worth has been elicited to falsify the aforesaid statement of the workman. The workman has further stated that an official of Petitioners used to take attendance and make payments. Petitioners have not produced any document before the Labour Court to show that in fact the workman worked less than 240 days in a year. Taking into consideration these aspects, the Labour Court held that the workman had worked for 240 days in a year continuously. There is nothing wrong in the said finding and the contention of the Petitioners in this regard is devoid of merit. 4. Admittedly the Petitioners have not complied with the requirement of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Therefore, the Labour Court was justified in ordering reinstatement with 25% backwages. The Labour Court relied upon the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 36507 of 1999 for denying 75% backwages. Thus, the Labour Court has taken into consideration equity, fair play and other relevant factors and exercised its discretionary power in granting the relief to the workman. There is no scope for interference. 5. The Labour Court relied upon the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 36507 of 1999 for denying 75% backwages. Thus, the Labour Court has taken into consideration equity, fair play and other relevant factors and exercised its discretionary power in granting the relief to the workman. There is no scope for interference. 5. The other contention of the Petitioners regarding the delay in making reference cannot be attributed to the workman. In fact, only 25% backwages is ordered by the Labour Court from the date of reference till the date of reinstatement. Full backwages have been denied from the date of termination till the date of reference. No relief is granted to the workman for the delayed period in making the reference. The delay that has occurred in making the reference by the Government cannot deprive the workman his legitimate benefits. Therefore, the contention raised regarding the delay in making reference will of no assistance to the Petitioners, as the relief moulded by the Labour Court is in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in the Sapan Kumar Pandit reported in JT 2001 (5) SC 5. 6. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed.