Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-Instant petition has been filed against the award passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur dated 15.01.1996 (Annexure-5). 2. The facts which have come on record are that the respondent-workman herein was appointed as Cattle Guard on 01.01.1985 and with certain break in service, he remained in employment upto 01.05.1989 and without complying with the provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Act, his services were dispensed with, which was questioned by him by filing application before the conciliation officer and finally a reference was made by the appropriate government for adjudication of the dispute before the Labour Court, Bharatpur. 3. Learned Labour Court after taking into consideration the material recorded a finding that one Laxman Singh S/o Chiranji Lal who has once been appointed in September, 1988 and working from April, 1989, whereas services of the respondent-workman were dispensed with from 01.05.1989, as such junior was retained and this action of the petitioner was in violation of Section 25-G of the Act of 1947 and consequently, set aside his alleged termination with the direction of reinstatement with continuity of service alongwith 25% back wages from September, 1991. Hence, this petition. 4. Counsel for petitioner submits that the respondent-workman had not worked at all in preceding 12 months from his alleged date of termination i.e., 01.05.1989 and for 8 and 1/2 months muster roll was made available were he has not worked even for a day and the Labour Court took adverse inference while recording a finding with regard to his working for 3 and 1/2 months in preceding 12 months only on the pretext that muster roll of the said period could not have been produced which in fact was not available in their office at the relevant time, as such in fact he was not in service for whole of the year for preceding 12 months. As such, the very finding which has been recorded in relation to Laxman Singh who in fact was appointed on daily wages basis on 01.08.1986 and was posted at Roopvas Nursery continuously in no manner could have been considered to be junior to him and such finding recorded of their action being violation of Section 25-G of the Act is totally perverse and is not supported by any legal evidence on record requires interference by this Court. Counsel further submits that neither in the statement of claim nor in the affidavit no reference was made with regard to Laxman Singh S/o Chiranji Lal holding him to be junior, but at the stage of cross-examination of the officer in-charge Shri Suresh Chand a passing reference has been made by him that one Laxman Singh who was initially appointed in September, 1988, but working since April, 1989 this was on the basis of available record with him at the relevant time, but according to him, Laxman Singh as per the seniority list available is working since 01.08.1986 continuously at Roopvas Nursery. Thus, proceeding on the said premise of statement recorded of officer incharge in its cross-examination the finding recorded by the learned Labour Court of junior being retained is totally perverse and is not legally sustainable. 5. Counsel for respondent has supported the finding recorded by the learned Labour Court and submits that it is duly supported by material on record, requires no interference. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the Counsel and with their assistance perused material on record. 7. This fact remain undisputed that the respondent-workman has not worked in preceding 12 months from the alleged date of termination and a finding with regard to his working for 3 and 1/2 months has been recorded on the basis of adverse inference drawn by the learned Labour Court. 8. 7. This fact remain undisputed that the respondent-workman has not worked in preceding 12 months from the alleged date of termination and a finding with regard to his working for 3 and 1/2 months has been recorded on the basis of adverse inference drawn by the learned Labour Court. 8. So far as Section 25-G is concerned, from bare perusal of Para 6 of the award muster roll of 8 and 1/2 months of the preceding 12 months period of alleged date of termination i.e., 01.05.1989 was produced and the workman had not worked even for a day and since the petitioner failed to produce the muster rolls for rest period of 3 and 1/2 months adverse inference has been drawn that even if it is presumed that he had worked continuously for 3 and 1/2 months, still he has not completed 240 days which does not call upon the petitioner to comply Section 25-F of the Act and in this context, if the finding of the Labour Court is examined with regard to Section 25-G, suffice it to say that if the respondent-workman was not in their employment for whole of the period in preceding 12 months from the alleged date of termination, in my opinion, in such factual situation, the finding which has been recorded by the Labour Court holding Laxman Singh to be junior being appointed at a later date is totally perverse. One can be said to be junior if both were allowed to work and services of senior among them have been dispensed with, but in the instant case, where the person who is claiming him to be senior if had not worked in preceding 12 months from the date of alleged termination, he cannot be held to be senior over others who were appointed on daily wages basis. Such finding of holding action to be in violation of Section 25-G of the Act, in my opinion, is not legally sustainable and deserves to be set aside. 9. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the award passed by the Labour Court dated 15.01.1996 is hereby quashed and set aside. However, it is made clear that whatever payment if at all has been made to the workman during the pendency of writ petition, the same shall not be recovered. No. costs.