Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The first respondent (for brevity, the "workman") was appointed as Junior Investigator (Coder) in Gandhigram Institute of Rural Health & Family Welfare (in short, the "Management") on temporary basis on 12. 1984 and continued till her services were terminated by order dated 18. 1994. 2. At the instance of the workman, an industrial dispute was raised and listed as I.D.No.389 of 1995 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Trichirappalli. The workman appeared herself on her behalf and examined herself, but, the Management did not choose to examine any person. After going through the exhibits and examination of the workman, the Labour Court answered the award in favour of the Management on the ground that the workman was engaged for a specific period. 3. The award of the labour Court having been challenged at the instance of the workman in W.P.No.14609 of 1998, the learned single Judge, by detailed impugned order dated 23. 2005, set aside the award and held that the order of termination was in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and directed to reinstate the workman with back wages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits. 4. The learned single Judge has taken into consideration exhibits W1 to W14, which were placed by the workman and other exhibits, viz. M1 to M11 placed by the Management and found that the workman was originally appointed on 12. 1984 for a period upto 33. 1984. However, she was not terminated, but was allowed to continue in service. In pursuance of different orders, her employment continued till 38. 1988 without a single day of break in service. Subsequently, her services were extended by order dated 38. 1988 from 9. 1988 to 33. 1989 and similar orders were passed on 23. 1989 and 29. 1989. However, by order dated 12. 1991, though it was informed that the services of the workman and other persons were not required and therefore, they were to be relieved from 30.3.1990, the workman was issued with an order of appointment as a Typist for the period from 30.3.1991 to 26. 1991. While by order dated 7. 1991, it was stated that the workman was relieved of her duty from the Institute with effect from 26. 1991, by subsequent order dated 17. 1991. While by order dated 7. 1991, it was stated that the workman was relieved of her duty from the Institute with effect from 26. 1991, by subsequent order dated 17. 1991, it was stated that her services as temporary Typist was extended from 30.6.1991 FN to 30.7.1991 AN (both days inclusive). It was further extended by order of 8. 1991, 18. 1991, 20.9.1991, 210. 1991 and 21. 1992. 5. From the aforesaid facts, as it is evident that the workman was relieved and was made to join some other post and there was a continuity of service and that the order of termination was issued without notice provided under Section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act, the learned single Judge declared the order of termination of the workman illegal. 6. In view of the facts aforementioned, the learned counsel for the Management, on the earlier date, sought time and today, he informed that the Management is agreeable to reinstate the workman, but without back wages. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workman submitted that the order of termination being illegal, the workman has been rightly allowed full back wages, as there was no laches on the part of the workman. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and noticed the rival contentions. 9. Admittedly, the order of termination was issued on 18. 1994. Thereafter, the industrial dispute was raised in the year 1995 and since the matter remained pending before the Labour Court as well as before this Court, it cannot be alleged that there was any laches either on the part of the workman or the Management. 10. In the circumstances, while we affirm the order of reinstatement passed by the learned single Judge, we direct that the workman shall be paid 25% of the back wages for the intervening period. However, the intervening period would be counted for all other benefits including seniority, retirement benefits etc. The order of the learned single Judge is modified to the above extent. The writ appeal stands disposed of with the above observation. However, there is no order as to costs. WAMP No.2670 of 2005 is closed.