JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, J. 1. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the award dated 4.4.1997 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi in Reference Case No. 2 of 1989, whereby and whereunder the termination of respondent No. 2 was declared void ab initio and order was passed for his reinstatement with back wages etc. 2. The following dispute was referred for adjudication by notification-dated 19.1.1989. Whether the termination of services of Shri Niranjan Sharma, 3 rd grade employee of Vikash Vidyalaya, Neori, Ranchi, is justified? If not, what relief the employee is entitled to? 3. Mr. Vijay Gopal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that in the written statement, respondent No. 2 admitted that after his services were terminated on 16.12.1985, he filed a petition on 19.12.1985 begging apology for his misconduct and in para 7, he categorically stated that on such representation he was "re-appointed". In these circumstances, it was submitted that the Tribunal could not hold that when he was again terminated on 21.3.1986, he had worked more than one year and therefore Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act (the Act) was violated. 4. Mr. Amitabh, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, submitted that he has got no instruction. 5. I find force in the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner. 6. Respondent No. 2 was appointed temporarily as an apprentice on 17.8.1981. It appears that such appointment was extended for some time but as the services of respondent No. 2 were not satisfactory, he was not confirmed. After issuing show cause notice, the services of respondent No. 2 was dispensed with on 16.12.1985-Ext-F-(annexure-3) which reads as follows: I had put you in the school as a Trainee, considering your circumstances, with the hope that you would be an useful person in the school and could be gradually given some job here. I had given you plenty of opportunity to learn work, but you had not come upto my expectations in your behaviour with your immediate superiors and in the quality of work. Your services as a trainee, are no more required with effect from 17 th December, 1985. On your handing over the charge of the bill book, General Store Stock Register, furniture and other registers maintained by you, the stock of the general store and charge of your residential accommodation, and all other papers, to the nominee of the Adm. Your services as a trainee, are no more required with effect from 17 th December, 1985. On your handing over the charge of the bill book, General Store Stock Register, furniture and other registers maintained by you, the stock of the general store and charge of your residential accommodation, and all other papers, to the nominee of the Adm. Officer, you will be paid your remuneration up to 16 th December, 1985. 7. Then on 19.12.1985, respondent No. 2, vide Ext-C (Annexure-4) prayed for allowing him to work. Respondent No. 2 admitted in his written statement, as noticed above, that he was re-appointed on 19.12.1985 on such request. Again by letter dated 21.3.1986-Ext-J/1 ( Annexure-6), his services were dispensed with. The said letter reads as follows: You were given work in the school as a Trainee, not on your merit and qualifications, but looking at your fathers old age and his good services to the School. Both your work and attitude towards your superiors have been unsatisfactory. I gave you sufficient opportunity to improve your attitude towards your superiors. I do not think that I would like you to be here in the school any more. Your services as a Trainee are no more required with effect from 22 nd March, 1986. I would like you to handover the guest house room and property to the Guest House Attendant and collect your remuneration for this month. 8. This gave rise to the present Industrial Dispute. There was no reason for Tribunal to hold that as respondent No. 2 worked for more than one year, Section 25F of the Act was violated. Admittedly, respondent No. 2 was re-appointed on 19.12.1985 and he was terminated by order dated 21.3.1986. 9. In my view, the award is apparently perverse as no reasonable man could reach at such finding on the basis of the pleadings and evidences, as noticed above. In the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned award is set aside. However, there will be no order as to costs.