JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned award dated 1st Feb., 2003 passed by the Labour Court in these five matters having identical facts. Since, according to learned counsel for the petitioner facts of one petition i.e. S.B.C.W.P. No. 4757/2002 can represent the complete factual aspect of the matter, therefore, there is no need to mention fact of each case. 2. It appears from the award that the petitioner earlier preferred the writ petition in which directions were issued to the labour Court to decide the claim of the non-petitioner. The claim of the non-petitioner-workman is that he was working with the petitioner since 1989 and continued to serve till 25.9.1999. Before that, the petitioner regularised the services of the non- petitioner on regular pay scale by order dated 25th Feb., 1997. By order dated 25th Sept., 1999 on the plea of eligibility, the above benefit was withdrawn and the non-petitioner was treated as temporary employee. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing the writ petition. During pendency of the writ petition again by order dated 31st March, 2000 services of the non-petitioner were terminated. The High Court in non-petitioner's writ petition directed non-petitioner to approach the labour Court upon which the labour Court took up the claim case of the non-petitioner wherein the non-petitioner claimed that relief of reinstatement be given to the non- petitioner from the date of 25th Sept., 1999. 3. The petitioner, in reply, before the labour Court admitted that non- petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1989 in Ashram Hostel by the petitioner on daily wages basis on the post of Sweeper. In pursuance of the directions dated 29th March, 1996 issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Dharmpal & Ors., the non-petitioner's services were regularised by paying regular pay scale of Rs. 750-940 from 15th Aug., 1996 which is the minimum pay scale of the said post. Thereafter, the petitioner found that non-petitioner-workman was not eligible for the said post at the time of earlier appointment and the State Government refused to relax the eligibility criteria, therefore, again in pursuance of the order dated 30th March, 2000, the services of the non-petitioner were terminated from 31st March, 2000. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner found that non-petitioner-workman was not eligible for the said post at the time of earlier appointment and the State Government refused to relax the eligibility criteria, therefore, again in pursuance of the order dated 30th March, 2000, the services of the non-petitioner were terminated from 31st March, 2000. 4. The labour court considered the facts of the case and also considered the evidence of the witness of the petitioner-employer, who in his statement, stated that services of the non-petitioner were regularised from 15th Aug., 1996, but he has no knowledge whether at that time his eligibility was considered or not. The witness of the petitioner admitted that no compensation as required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947') was paid to the non-petitioner. The learned labour court in impugned award even after finding that there is a violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 still awarded compensation instead of relief of reinstatement. This award is under challenge in this writ petition by the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that non-petitioner worked from 25th Sept., 1999, which is clear from the office order referred in the award itself and his services were terminated on 31st March, 2000, therefore, it is clear that the non-petitioner-workman has not completed 240 days in preceding calendar year, therefore, the award passed by the Labour Court is illegal. 6. I do not find any force in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner in their reply itself admitted that non-petitioner was working in the employment of the petitioner since 1989 and his services were regularised by order dated 25th Feb., 1997. Even in compliance to the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharmpal's case, he was given regular pay scale by order dated 15th Aug, 1996. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, as per decision of Dharmpal's case, only qualified persons were required to be given regular pay scale and their services could have been regularised but the non-petitioner, who was not eligible at that time, his services were wrongly regularized, therefore, by order dated 31st March, 2000 the petitioner's services came to an end. 7. 7. In view of this stand also, it is clear that non-petitioner who was working since 1989 with the petitioner and was granted regular pay scale by order dated 28th March, 1996 and against whom the order of withdrawal of regular pay scale was passed on 25th Sept., 1999, which was under challenge in the writ petition filed by the non-petitioner. These facts prove beyond doubt that the non-petitioner worked with the petitioner for a long period from 1989 to 1999 and, thereafter, in the year 1996 he was given regular pay scale. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to say that the non-petitioner has not completed 240 days in a calendar year.Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the award passed by the Labour Court, Udaipur dated 1st Feb., 2002 in all these matters. All the writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed at admission stage.Petitions dismissed. *******