Judgment M.R. Calla, J.-This special appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated November 2, 2001. The respondent-workman was appointed with the appellant establishment initially on daily wages basis on October 1, 1977. While he was working on daily wages since October 1, 1977, the appointment was given to him on September 21, 1983 at the chilling plant centre of Sawaimadhopur and Tonk Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. tor three months but he was allowed to continue in service until he was terminated by order dated May 10, 1984 w.e.f May 12, 1984. Thus, he was retrenched from the service without complying with the requirements of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. On dispute being raised in the year 1991, reference was made to the Labour Court, Bharatpur in January 1992. The Labour Court adjudicated the dispute and has held that there was a clear cut violation of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 inasmuch as no retrenchment benefits were paid to the respondent-workman. On July 20, 1995 the Labour Court granted the relief of reinstatement and only 60% back wages by saying that the dispute was raised after a period of 7 years. 3. Theaward passed by the Labour Court on July 20, 1995 was subjected to challenge in the writ proceedings. The learned single Judge has recorded that for the delay of 7 years in raising the dispute 40% back wages have been rightly denied. Learned Counsel for the appellants does not contest the relief of reinstatement as granted but he has submitted that grant of 60% back wages is wrong. Since the dispute was raised after 7 years, no back wages should have been granted. 4. TheLabour Court has applied its mind and looking to the totality of the facts and finding that the retrenchment was void-ab-initio and illegal, has granted the relief of 60% of back wages and 40 percent back wages have been denied because the dispute was raised after seven years. 5. Inour opinion no interference is called for in the order as the order seeks to render substantial justice. We agree with the view taken by the learned single Judge. 6. This appeal has no force and the same is hereby dismissed.