JUDGMENT 1. - Award dated 19.12.1991 (Ann.8) passed by Labour Court, Bharatpur in LCR No. 222/87, has been assailed by the petitioner in this writ petition. Facts, in brief, are that respondent-workman was initially engaged/appointed in January 1981 and his services were dispensed with on 20.10.1982, but after intervention made by conciliation officer, he was taken back in service and worked upto 19.8.1984, to which the workman raised a dispute that he has not been allowed to work after 19.8.1984. Dispute was referred by appropriate Government vide notification dated 19.4.1986 (Ann.1). Respondent workman in his statement of claim submitted that he was not allowed to work after 19.8.1984 and his verbal termination was made by petitioner in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act') ignoring the fact that he has completed more than 240 days in service. 2. The petitioner filed reply to statement of claim and has submitted that the workman started his work from August, 1981 and after 15.10.1982 he voluntarily stopped from coming to the office of petitioner and after interference made by conciliation officer on 26.5.1983, he was allowed to work vide order dated 1.9.1983 but he again stopped coming to office from August 1984. It has further been submitted that it was a case of voluntary abandonment of job, and as such, there was no requirement for the petitioner to make compliance of Section 25-F of the Act. The Labour Court after examining the material on record, recorded finding that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in service and the petitioner failed to comply with Section 25-F of the Act, and apart from it, no inquiry or notice or opportunity was ever afforded to the workman if it was a case of voluntary abandonment of job, and accordingly directed the petitioner to reinstate the workman in service with full back wages vide its Award dated 19.12.1991 (Ann.8). Hence, this writ petition. 3. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Only grievance made by petitioner is that material which was available on record before the Labour Court, has not been properly appreciated, and the finding that it cannot be construed to be a case of voluntary abandonment of job, in the facts of present case, cannot be said to be justified, and the direction issued for reinstatement for non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Act was not required because of it being a case of abandonment of job by respondent-workman. 4. What has been stated by petitioner is to make exercise by this Court in writ jurisdiction for complete re-appreciation of evidence adduced before Labour Court-on the basis of which the impugned finding has been recorded with regard to the workman having worked for more than 240 days & as to non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Act, so also the theory propounded by petitioner for voluntary abandonment of job by workman, but from the material on record, I find that no error has been committed by Labour Court in recording the finding in this regard and once the petitioner failed to show that after the workman had worked for more than 240 days in service, and even if it is a case of voluntary abandonment of job by workman then also the petitioner failed to produce any material to show as to what procedure was adopted by it, and otherwise also, at best it can be a case of absence from duty but, for which admittedly, neither any inquiry was conducted, nor any notice was issued nor any opportunity was afforded to the workman, therefore, in the absence of which, if the workman had worked for more than 240 days, it can at best be a case of termination simpliciter, which was retrenchment and in that eventuality, the employer was under obligation to comply with Section 25-F of the Act, which admittedly in present case, has not been made. 5. 5. Counsel for the respondent-workman further informed to this Court that in compliance of Award dated 19.12.1991 (Ann.8), respondent-workman has been reinstated in service on 21.10.1999 and since then he has been continuously working and apart from it, in terms of order dated 6.8.1999 passed by this Court on the application moved u/s. 17-B of the Act, arrears towards wages have also been paid from the date of filing of writ petition dated 11.11.1992 till he was reinstated in service. In this view of the matter, counsel for the petitioner submitted that compliance of the award in part has been made and the workman has been reinstated in service besides payment of arrears from November, 1992, therefore, to the extent of making payment of arrears from the date of his termination till passing of the Award (Ann.8), the impugned Award be modified. Counsel for respondent-workman submitted that once there was violation of provisions of the Act, reinstatement with back wages is consequential which the workman is entitled for but looking to the totality of the facts available on record and the period of effective working of respondent-workman in service, I am of the opinion that what has been paid to the workman is sufficient in terms of the Award dated 19.12.1991 (Ann.8) and he is not entitled to the arrears of wages, which have not yet been paid for the period from August 1984 till the date of passing of the Award dated 19.12.1991. 6. The writ petition is partly allowed and the respondent-workman should not be made entitled to claim any wages in terms of the Award dated 19.12.1991 other than what has been paid to him and to this extent only, the Award dated 19.12.1991 (Ann.8) stands modified. No order as to costs.Writ petition partly allowed - Award modified accordingly. *******