Judgment Prem Shanker Asopa, J.-That the Union of India has filed the present writ petition against the award of the Industrial Tribunal (Central) Kota, dated 29.01.1996, whereby the workman has been reinstated in service with full back-wages and continuity in service. 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the Government of India, Labour Ministry made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal to the following effect:-“Whether the action of the Supdt. Archaeological Survey of India, Jaipur is justified in terminating the services of Shri Bhagwan Giri s/o Sh. Dev Giri w.e.f 26.07.1988 is justified. If not, what relief the workman is entitled to.” 3. On receipt of the reference, the notices were issued to the parties and the statement of claim has been filed by the respondent-workman, wherein he has categorically stated that he had worked from 15.06.1985 to 26.07.1988. Thereafter he was not allowed to work. Before retrenchment, he had completed 240 days in the last 12 preceding months, but before retrenchment neither one months notice was given nor pay in lieu of said notice was given nor retrenchment compensation was given. 4. The petitioner filed written statement to the said claim and submitted that they have not terminated the services of the respondent-workman and the respondent-workman himself abandoned the services. Before the Conciliation Officer, the offer of fresh appointment was given but the same was not accepted by the workman. 5. That in evidence, respondent-workman Shri Bhagawn Giri filed his affidavit and he was cross-examined. On behalf of the management, Shri Ashok Kumar filed his affidavit and he was examined by the workman. After hearing both the parties the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the present case is not of the case of abandonment of service as neither any notice was given nor any inquiry was made by the management. As regards not accepting the offer of employment, it was held by the Labour Court that this was offer of fresh employment without continuity in service. Therefore, the workman has right to accept it or not. 6. The Labour Court has also held retrenchment illegal in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act as neither one months notice nor pay in lieu of said notice nor compensation was given. Therefore, the workman has right to accept it or not. 6. The Labour Court has also held retrenchment illegal in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act as neither one months notice nor pay in lieu of said notice nor compensation was given. The Labour Court held retrenchment illegal and gave its award in affirmative and directed to reinstate the workman with continuity in service with full back-wages. The relevant Para Nos. 9 and 10 of the Labour Court Award are reproduced as under: ^^9-bl izdkj izfri{kh dh vksj ls rF; Lohd`r gS fd izkFkhZ us tc izfri{kh ds ;gka 240 fnu yxkrkj dk;Z dj dj lsfy;k rks mls vf /kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ,Q ds rgr fu;ekuqlkj uksfVl osru o NaVuh dk eqvkotk nsok ls gVk;k tkuk pkfg, FkkA tgka rd Jfed ds LosPNk ls ukSdjh ij ugha vkus dk izu gS] og izfri{kh us lkfcr ugha fd;k gS D;kasfd izfri{kh us Jfed dks ukSdjh ij vkus ckcr dksbZ uksfVl ugha fn;k vkSj u dksbZ tkap dhA tgka rd le> kSrk vf /kdkjh ds le{k ubZ ukSdjh ij izkFkhZ ds ugha vkus dk izu gS] ;g mldk viuk vf/kdkj FkkA bl izdkj fu"d"kZ ;g fudyrk gS fd pwafd izkFkhZ us izfri{kh ds ;gka 15-06-1985 ls 26-07-1988 ds e/; 240 fnu ls vf /kd le; rd yxkrkj lsok iw.kZ dj yh Fkh rks izfri{kh ds fy, ;g vko;d Fkk fd og fu;ekuqlkj vf /kfu;e dh /kkjk 25&,Q dh ikyuk djds gh izkFkhZ dks ukSdjh ls gVkrk blds vfrfjDr izkFkhZ dks iqu% lsok esa vkus ckcr izfri{kh dh vkspuk Hkh ugha nh x;h vkSj u dksbZ tkap dh x;h]j ls dksbZ uksfVl@lwok ls gVkuk vuqfpr o voS/k ekuk tkuk ;ksvr% bl izdkj izkFkhZ dks lsX; gSa] QyLo:i izkFkhZ fiNys lEiw.kZ f "kr fd; stkus;ksosru o lsok dh fujUrjrk lfgr iqu% lsok esa vkus dk vf /kdkjh ? sX; gSaA 10-mijkasDr lEiw.kZ foospu ds vk/kkj ij Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk lEizsf "kr funsZk dks bl izdkj mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gS v/kh"k.k iqjkrRofon] Hkkjrh; iqjkrRo loZ{k.k t;isqj ¼dksVk½ }kjk izkFkhZ Hkxoku fxjh ok ls gVkuk vuqfpr o voS/k gSru o lsdks fnukad 26-07-1988 ls lsa QyLo:i izkFkhZ fiNys lEiw.kZ osok dh fujUrjrk lfgr iqu% lsok esa fy; stkusdk vf/kdkjh ? sf "kr fd;k tkrk gSA** 7. sf "kr fd;k tkrk gSA** 7. The submission of the Counsel for the Union of India is that the award of the Tribunal suffers from serious infirmity, as the Tribunal gave no weightage to the fact that the workman has not accepted the offer of appointment. The submission of the Counsel for the respondent-workman is that the said offer of employment was new employment and the continuity in service was not given, therefore, the workman was within its rights not to accept the same. 8. I haveperused the award and record of the case. Since, the workman has worked for more then a period of three years, therefore offer of fresh employment could not be said to be an employment with continuity, which is the right of the workman and the same was wrongly denied by making illegal retrenchment in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. 9. In my view, the Labour Court has not committed any illegality or perversity so as to warrant any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.