JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this case, the State has challenged the validity of the award dated 17.10.2002 passed by Judge, Labour Court, Udaipur in Labour Dispute No. 29/2001 whereby the retrenchment of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.1999 was set aside and it was ordered that the petitioner will be entitled for reinstatement in service alongwith 50% back wages. 3. According to the facts of the case, initially the respondent No. 1 was engaged as part time Class IV employee on 25.01.1991 at Primary Health Centre, Mal and his services were retrenchment without following the provisions of Section 25F(a) and (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent No. 1 raised an industrial dispute before the conciliation officer and after failure of the conciliation proceedings, the matter was referred to the appropriate Government for making reference. The appropriate Government referred the matter to the Judge, Labour Court, Udaipur for adjudication, which reads as under : " D;k eq[; fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; vf/kdkjh] Mwaxjiqj ( jkt0 ) }kjk izkFkhZ Jh fxfjjkt izlkn 'kekZ] p0Js0 deZpkjh dks lsok i`Fkd djuk rFkk Jheku~ vfrfjDr funs'kd ( iz'kklu ) ] fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; lsok;sa] jktLFkku t;iqj ls vkns'kkad bZ&12@,e@p0Js0d0@fu;w@99@639 fnukad 13-04-99 dh Lohd`fr dh ikyuk ds ckotwn izkFkhZ dks lsok esa ugha ysuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gS\ vxj ugha rks izkFkhZ fdl jkgr ,oa jkf'k dks izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ " 4. Before the Judge, Labour Court, the respondent No. 1 filed his statement of claim in which it is categorically stated by him that he worked with the respondent Department for more than 240 days, therefore, before terminating his services, the respondents were under obligation to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F (a) and (b) of the Act which is not complied with by the respondent. Therefore, his retrenchment is illegal. 5. The Judge, Labour Court, Udaipur after taking evidence on record arrived at with the finding that the petitioner is a workman and his services were dispensed with without complying with the provisions of the Act. Therefore, his retrenchment is illegal. 5. The Judge, Labour Court, Udaipur after taking evidence on record arrived at with the finding that the petitioner is a workman and his services were dispensed with without complying with the provisions of the Act. The finding of the Judge, Labour Court is based on the judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case of Yashwant Singh Yadav v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1989(2) RLW 290 , in which it has been held by Hon'ble Division Bench that even a part time employee working in the Department is entitled for protection under the Act of 1947 and he is required to be treated as workman. While treating the respondent No. 1 as workman and considering the period of service rendered by the respondent No. 1, a finding has been given by the Judge, Labour Court, Udaipur in which it has been held that the retrenchment of the respondent No. 1 was illegal and he is entitled for reinstatement with 50% back wages along with other benefits. 6. In my opinion, no illegality has been committed by the Judge, Labour Court, Udaipur while adjudicating the reference made by the appropriate Government for adjudication with regard to retrenchment of the respondent No. 1. 7. In similar case in which identical issue was in question, the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2926 of 2000, State v. Suresh Chand, decided on 21.04.2005 held that part time employee is also workman and for terminating his services, the petitioner-Department was under obligation to comply with the provisions of the Act. 8. In this view of the matter, I see no reason to interfere with the finding arrived at by Judge, Labour Court, Udaipur, which is based upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case Yashwant Singh Yadav v. State of Raj. (supra). There is no force in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.Writ petition dismissed. *******