JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-employer assailing the Award dated 13.9.2002 passed by the Labour Court, Kota in labour case no. 12/2001 whereby the respondent-workman has been ordered to be reinstated with continuity in service and Rs. 5,000/- has been awarded towards the back-wages. 2. The facts in brief of the case are that the petitioner-employer (Executive Officer, Municipal Council-Baran) has engaged the respondent-workman on daily wages basis w.e.f. 1.6.92 and the respondent-workman worked till June, 1993 continuously. Thereafter on 1.7.1993, the services of the respondent-workman were terminated. Being aggrieved by the termination, the respondent-workman raised the industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer, but no settlement could be arrived at between the parties. Therefore the Conciliation Officer submitted the failure report. After considering the failure report and material on record, the Labour Department, Government of Rajasthan has referred the dispute under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to be as `Act of 1947') to the Labour Court, Kota for adjudication, which runs as under : "Whether the services of labour (respondent no.2) has wrongly terminated by employer Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Baran vide order dated 1.7.93 is reasonable and valid? And if not for what relief the labour is entitled?" 3. After issuing the notices, both the parties appeared before the Labour Court and the respondent-workman filed the statement of claim stating therein that respondent-workman was engaged as a labourer on 1.6.92 and he continuously worked till June 1993 but thereafter his services were terminated without following the mandatory provisions of the Act of 1947. It is further stated that before terminating his service, no notice under Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 was given to the respondent-workman. 4. Per contra, the petitioner-employer has submitted the written statement stating therein that before terminating the services of respondent-workman, there was no necessity to give one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof or retrenchment compensation as required under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the respondent-workman as the respondent-workman has failed to prove that he has completed 240 days in last preceding calendar year. The petitioner-employer has also submitted an affidavit of the Executive Officer in this respect. 5. The petitioner-employer has also submitted an affidavit of the Executive Officer in this respect. 5. The Labour Court, Kota after hearing the parties and after considering the entire material available on record vide its Award dated 13.9.02 held that the termination of the respondent-workman was illegal and, therefore, he should be reinstated with continuity in service. The learned Labour Court has also awarded Rs. 5,000/- towards the back-wages. The petitioner (Municipal Council-Baran) has challenged the aforesaid award dated 13.9.02 principally on the following grounds : (i) That the impugned award dated 13.9.02 passed by the Labour Court is illegal for the reason that the reference has been made by the State of Rajasthan after the inordinate delay of six years, hence the reference could not be entertained by the Court after such an inordinate delay. (ii) That the Labour Court has passed the impugned award against the facts & circumstances available on record, the finding of the Labour Court are perverse for the reason that it has been specifically stated by the petitioner-employer that the respondent no.2 was employed for the casual labour for maintaining the park and he has not continuity worked for 240 days. (iii) That the Labour Court has wrongly held that employee has completed 240 days work in a year, the finding of the learned Labour Court is erroneous and illegal. (iv) That the respondent-workman has not worked for 240 days and he has prepared the forged muster roll with collusion of employee of the petitioner-department. (v) That the learned Labour Court has failed to appreciate that the petitioner's office is a Government Department absolutely controlled by the Government, by its Rules and Regulations. The entire funding is done by the Government, therefore, also the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 cannot be made applicable in the petitioner's office in the view of recent Supreme Court of India's order. 6. In support of his case, the counsel for the petitioner-employer has cited the following judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (i) 2007(7) SCC 748 , Ganga Kishan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. v. Jai Veer Singh ; (ii) 2007(7) SCC 366 , District Red Cross Society v. Babita Arora and ors. and 2007(7) SCC 748 -B . 7. 6. In support of his case, the counsel for the petitioner-employer has cited the following judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (i) 2007(7) SCC 748 , Ganga Kishan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. v. Jai Veer Singh ; (ii) 2007(7) SCC 366 , District Red Cross Society v. Babita Arora and ors. and 2007(7) SCC 748 -B . 7. In 2007(7) SCC 748 -B, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under : "Ss.2(oo)(bb) and 25-F-Applicability-Burden of proof to prove nature of appointment, held, is on the employee See `Temporary employees', below, (2007) 7 SCC 748 -B. [133]-Ss. 2(oo)(bb) and 25-F-Applicability-Workmen appointed to seasonal posts for the whole season-Termination of services of, held, does not amount to retrenchment in view of S.2(oo)(bb)-Hence direction to reinstate workmen with back wages by courts below, set aside." 8. The counsel for the respondent-workman has vehemently argued and controverted the grounds taken up by the counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that while granting the back-wages, the Labour Court has taken note of delay in raising the industrial dispute. The officers of the petitioner-employer admitted during the course of examination that the work was done by the workman from June 1992 to June, 1993 continuously. The respondent-workman has further submitted that no glaring illegality has been, committed by the Labour Court and, therefore, the award passed by the Labour Court cannot be interfered with in an extra ordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. He has further submitted that since there is a finding of facts in respect of completion of 240 days in one calendar year and before terminating the services, mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 have not been followed, the scope of interference under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited. He has further submitted that termination is amounting to retrenchment and it was the duty of the employer to give him one month's notice and compensation which the respondent-workman has not been given. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (i) 2002(2) L.L.N. 405 - Gurumail Singh v. Principal, Government College of Education and Ors. , (ii) 2005(4) WLC (Raj.) 90 - Union of India and anr. v. Labour Court and anr. , (iii) 1999(6) SCC 82 - Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Limited and anr. , (ii) 2005(4) WLC (Raj.) 90 - Union of India and anr. v. Labour Court and anr. , (iii) 1999(6) SCC 82 - Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Limited and anr. and (iv) 2001(3) L.L.N. 820 - Deep Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr. 9. I have gone through the record of the writ petition and also the rival submissions of both the parties. In the case of Gurumail Singh (supra), the Supreme Court held as under : "The judgment and order of the High Court as well as the Labour Court are set aside. The termination of the appellant on September 30, 1981 is held to be bad and set aside. The appellant is ordered to be reinstated in service as Junior Lecturer Assistant with continuity of service. But so far as the backwages are concerned, he will not be entitled to any backwages from September 30, 1981 till February 27, 1989 as he had not raised any dispute during that time. Thereafter from March 1, 1989 till the date of reinstatement of the appellant, on the fact and circumstances of the present case, the respondents are directed to pay 50 per cent of the backwages towards full and final satisfaction of appellant's claim, regarding backwages. This amount shall be calculated, and paid to the appellant by the respondents within eight weeks from today. He shall be reinstated with continuity in service also within that time. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs." 10. In the case of Union of India v. Labour Court (supra), this Court has held as under : "9. It is admitted position on record that the respondent no.2 was engaged in the services in the month of October 1983 and he had worked there till December 1984. His services were terminated on 3 31.12.1984 without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. During the aforesaid period, the respondent no.2 workman has worked more than 240 days in a calendar year and this fact has been established by the Schedule-4, wherein it appeared that he has worked 346 days in a calendar year. This fact has also been controverted before the conciliation officer. The petitioners, in their statements have categorically admitted before the Conciliation Officer that the respondent no.2 workman has worked more than 240 days in a calendar year. This fact has also been controverted before the conciliation officer. The petitioners, in their statements have categorically admitted before the Conciliation Officer that the respondent no.2 workman has worked more than 240 days in a calendar year. So far as the service of the notice on the respondent-workman is concerned, the Labour Court has established this fact that no notice was ever served by the petitioners on the respondent-workman. In any case, if any notice was being served, then the question could be resolved by the witnesses in the cross-examination, but no question regarding service of notice was ever asked in the cross-examination. Therefore, the Labour Court reached on the conclusion that there was no service of the notice as alleged in the reply to the claim petition. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding service of notice on the respondent-workman, has no force and the same is rejected. 10. Regarding the delay of more than about 11 years in filing the claim petition, the Labour Court after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case as well as relying on the judgments of this court, observed that relief cannot be denied on the ground of delay. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding delay, has no force and the same is rejected. 11. So far as awarding of 50% back wages from the date of reference is concerned, I do not find any error or illegality in the award passed by the Labour Court. The discretion can be exercised by the Tribunal while passing the award. 12. Having taking into consideration the contentions raised before me and the material placed alongwith the writ petition, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for by this court in the award passed by the Labour Court. The Labour Court after judiciously applying its mind to the overall facts & circumstances of the case, has given concrete and specific finding while passing the impugned award. 13. Apart from that, the power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is restricted to interference in cases of grave dereliction of duty or flagrant violation of law, and would be exercised most sparingly only in cases where grave injustice has been caused. I do not find any such illegality or irregularity in the impugned award. I do not find any such illegality or irregularity in the impugned award. The Labour Court, after hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties and taking into consideration the material available on record, passed a reasoned and speaking order, which does not call for interference by this court. 14. In this view of the matter, the writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed." 11. In the case of Ajaib Singh (supra), the Supreme Court in the head note `C' held as under : "In view of seven years' long delay in seeking reference of the dispute regarding termination of service, Supreme Court although upholding the Labour Court' award for reinstatement and permitting continuity of service, limiting the back wages from the date of issuance of notice of demand till the date of Labour Court's award to 60 per cent and awarding full back wages, only for the succeeding period." 12. In the case of Deep Chandra (supra), the Supreme Court held as under : "The High Court approached the matter rather strangely as it went at a tangent to consider not only whether the casual worker's services can be put to an end to but if the award made by the Labour Court would make him permanent employee, so on and so forth. The High Court lost sight of the point in issue that is, when an employee had put in service for more than 240 days in each year for several years whether his services can be put to an end to without following the procedure prescribed under S.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. If there has been violation thereof, such an employee will have to be reinstated in his original service on the same terms and conditions in which he was working earlier. If this is the position in law, we fail to understand as to how the High Court could have interfered with the award made by the Labour Court. We set aside the order made by the High Court and restore the award made by the Labour Court. The appeal is allowed accordingly." 13. In addition to above submissions, the counsel for the respondent-workman requested this court that the respondent-workman is ready to forgo the lump sum awarded amount of back-wages of salary to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- which has been awarded by the learned Labour Court. The appeal is allowed accordingly." 13. In addition to above submissions, the counsel for the respondent-workman requested this court that the respondent-workman is ready to forgo the lump sum awarded amount of back-wages of salary to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- which has been awarded by the learned Labour Court. He has also contended that the respondent-workman was a poor person and is suffering grave financial hardship as he was earning Rs. 33/- per day only. 14. I have gone through the record of the case and after hearing both the parties, this court has put a specific query to the counsel for the petitioner-employer whether the petitioner-employer has lodged any FIR in the concerned Police Station or filed any complaint before any competent court of law or concerned Magistrate under Sec.190 Cr.P.C. against the respondent-workman regarding the allegation which he has raised/levelled in ground `E' of the writ petition, which is reproduced as under : "That in fact the respondent no.2 has not worked for 240 days and he has preferred the forge muster roll with collusion of employees of the petitioner department. Apart from this aspect the dispute has been raised after delay of 6 years which creates a serious doubt. The respondent no.2 has not come before the court with clean hands and wants to get relief from the court of justice in illegal manner." 15. In response to that, the counsel for the petitioner-employer submitted that neither any FIR has been lodged against the respondent-workman in any Police Station nor any criminal complaint has been filed before any competent court of law nor any enquiry has been initiated against him. 16. During the midst of arguments, this court has further made a query to the counsel for the petitioner-employer and how this ground `E', quoted herein above, has been supported by an affidavit of Ram Niwas, Officer Incharge of this case? 17. In response to it, the counsel for the petitioner-employer has submitted that the concerned Officer Incharge may be excused for the same. Therefore, in view of the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner-employer, this court' does not want to take any action against the Officer Incharge of the case for filing wrong affidavit in the petition which is supported by the aforesaid affidavit. 18. Therefore, in view of the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner-employer, this court' does not want to take any action against the Officer Incharge of the case for filing wrong affidavit in the petition which is supported by the aforesaid affidavit. 18. After going through the aforesaid submissions and various judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioner-employer, I am of the view that the same are not applicable in the instant case. The finding of the Labour Court are fully supported by the evidence and record available before it and after considering the entire material on record, it has come to the conclusion that the respondent-workman has completed 240 days in the last preceding year and his services were terminated without complying with the mandatory provisions of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thus, I am of the opinion that the cases cited by the counsel for the respondent-workman are fully applicable in the instant case. It is also settled law that in the writ of `CERTIORARI', the findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless it is against the law and evidence. The petitioner has failed to point out any glaring illegality in the award passed by the Labour Court. 19. In the result, the order of the Labour Court dated September 13, 2002 is modified and this writ petition is disposed of on the following terms : "The respondent-workmen is hereby reinstated with all consequential benefits with immediate effect as awarded by the labour court on September 13, 2002, with continuity in service except the back wages of Rs. 5,000/-." The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.Writ Petition Disposed of as above. *******