JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner has challenged the award dated 9.1.2006 passed by the Labour Court, Jaipur by which while holding termination of services of respondent No. 1, the concerned workman, as illegal and unjustified for want of compliance of Section 25(F) of the I.D. Act, the concerned workman has been ordered to be reinstated with 10% backwages.After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record.As has been observed by the Labour Court, the concerned workman was not cross-examined by the petitioner inspite of repeated opportunities been given. The evidence led on behalf of the petitioner was also absolutely vague wherein the witness admitted that in absence of record, he cannot say as to how many days the concerned workman had worked. 2. Since there is finding of fact and after due consideration proper discretion has been used by the Labour Court in granting appropriate relief to the concerned workman, in the facts and circumstances, no further interference is called for by this court under writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly as having no merits. Since the termination relates to the year 1989, the petitioner is now directed to reinstate the concerned workman and make the payment, as ordered by the Labour Court, within 30 days from date of receipt of certified copy of this order.Writ Petition Dismissed - Award Be Implemented Within 30 Days. *******