JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition, the petitioner-Executive Engineer, official of the State has challenged the award of the Labour Court dated 28.5.2002 whereby the petitioner has been reinstated with 50% back wages. 2. The facts, in brief, of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Beldar in the month of November, 1985 on wages of Rs. 11 per day and subsequently his services were terminated on 18.10.1988. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the workman has failed to prove that he has completed 240 days in a calendar year preceding to retrenchment and further, the Labour Court has committed an error in drawing an adverse inference. The Labour Court has also not properly considered the fact that there was a considerable delay of 5 years in initiating conciliation proceeding. The present case is not a case of termination and the same is of abandonment of service as the workman did not turn up after 18.10.1988. 4. Counsel for the respondent workman has not filed any reply to the writ petition, but had supported the award of the Labour Court and further made an attempt to make out his case from the record of the writ petition itself. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present case is of abandonment of service as the workman did not turn up after 18.10.1988. Further submission of counsel for the petitioner is that the Labour Court has committed a serious error of law in drawing adverse inference simply on account of non-production of muster rolls and further finding on the issue of completion of 240 days is perverse. 6. Counsel for the respondent workman has submitted that as per their reply to the statement of claim (annexure-1), which was filed before the Labour Court also, in case number of days are counted from October, 1988 to preceding one year i.e. October, 1987 then the total number of days comes to 259, which are more than 240 days, therefore, the finding of the Labour Court on this count is not to be interfered. 7. 7. Further submission of counsel for the respondent workman is that the Assistant Engineer, PWD-Nishu Gupta in his cross examination, in the last para, has stated that the muster rolls were issued after 1988 but the workman was not called by them nor they have written any letter to him, therefore the present case is of such a nature, which cannot be said to be of abandonment of service. It is further submitted that there is a clear violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as neither notice nor pay in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation has been given to the workman. As regards back wages, counsel for the respondent workman submitted that in case same is reduced to 25% then also he has no objection. 8. Heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the writ petition and further considered rival submissions of the parties.In my view, finding of the Labour Court on the issue of 240 days on the ground of drawing adverse inference is liable to upheld on another ground as per material on record that the workman has completed more than 240 days. Further there is a clear violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as neither notice nor pay in lieu of notice nor retrenchment compensation has been given to the workman. Normal rule in case of violation of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act is reinstatement with back wages, but since in this case, conciliation proceedings were initiated after 5 years, therefore, back wages are liable to be reduced to 25%. 9. In view of above, the award of the Labour Court dated 28.5.2002 is modified to the extent that the order of termination dated 18.10.1988 is illegal and void and the workman is entitled only for 25% back wages with continuity of service. 10. The writ petition is disposed of as indicated above.Writ Petition Disposed of as Above. *******