Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-This writ petition has been filed against Award dated 17/12/98 passed by Labour Court Bharatpur in LCR No. 166/91, whereby the workman has been directed to be reinstated in service with full back wages so also alongwith cost of Rs. 500/-. 2. Case of the petitioner State is that respondent workman had worked on daily wages basis for 22 days in February, 1990 and voluntarily left the job, so there was no occasion for the petitioner to comply with either of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("Act") 3. Case of the workman before the Labour Court was that he worked as Beldar from Ist February to 20th February, 1990 and without any rhyme and reason, his services were terminated by verbal order as also without complying with provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G, and 25-H of the Act. 4. The Labour Court, after examining material on record, concluded that the workman had not worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months, as such the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were not attracted but has recorded a finding that juniors to the workman were retained and the principles of "last come first go" was not followed by the petitioner, and the services of workman were dispensed with from 20/02/1990 in violation of Section 25-H of the Act. 5. The petitioner State has challenged the Award basically on the premises that there was no facts and particulars made available by the workman on record either in his statement of claim or in his affidavit to show as to how the persons named therein were junior to him and whether they at all worked on the post of Beldar held by the workman while he was in service, and submitted that in absence of such material particulars made available by him on record, the finding recorded by Labour Court holding dispensing with workmans service in violation of Section 25-G or 25-H of the Act is perverse and is not legally sustainable. 6. 6. It has further been submitted that looking to short period for which the workman had worked as Beldar, that too on daily wages basis, the Award, which has been passed with regard to payment of back wages is not legally justified and no material was placed on record by the workman to show that he was not employed elsewhere during pendency of proceedings before the Labour Court. 7. During pendency of writ petition, respondent workman filed an application under Section 17-B of the Act accompanied by an affidavit. On the said application, this Court passed order on 10/12/99 as under:- "...............The operation of the impugned Award dated 17/12/1998 was stayed by this Court on 01/07/1999. The writ petition was filed on 19/05/1999. Under the provisions of Section 17-B of the I.D. Act the employer is bound to pay to the workman the last pay drawn, during pendency of writ petition. For the aforesaid reasons, it is directed that the employer shall pay the last pay drawn, to workman during pendency of writ petition and the arrear shall be paid within two months. The monthly salary shall be paid within ten days of each month. However, the employer shall be authorised to pass the order of reinstatement, if it so desires. 8. During pendency of writ petition, this Court vide order dated 02/05/2001 dismissed the writ petition in so far as challenge to reinstatement of respondent workman is concerned, but this Court admitted the writ petition only to the question for grant of back wages. 9. It has been informed to this Court that in compliance of the Award dated 17/12/1998, workman (respondent) has been reinstated in service w.e.f. 24/08/2002 and after giving him benefit of continuous service, he has also been declared semi permanent under the Rajasthan Work-charged Service Rules, 1964 vide order dated 29/08/2003. 10. Looking to total service rendered by the workman and the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that back wages as directed by the Award dated 17/12/1998 (Annexure-1) is not justified and to the extent of grant of back wages as directed by the Tribunal stands set aside and rest of the Award stands upheld. Consequently, this writ petition stands disposed of . No order as to costs.