Judgment ( 1. ) Writ petition has been preferred by Municipal Council, Umaria, as against the award dated 6.5.2008 (Ex. P.6) passed by Labour Court, Shahdol in reference case No. l/I.D.Act/07 Ref. ( 2. ) On failure of conciliation the case of workman was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court with respect to termination of his services. It was claimed by the workman that he was appointed on clear vacant post of Driver in the year 1995. He had continuously rendered the services till 15.5.2005, he had acquired status of permanent Driver, thus, termination of services as per oral order was illegal. No retrenchment compensation was paid. The provision of Section 25-F was also not complied with. The order of termination of services was not based on departmental enquiry. The principal of "last come, first go" was not adhered to, thus, retrenchment was illegal. The workman was receiving wages of Rs. 2180/- at the time of illegal retrenchment. He has remained unemployerd after termination of his services, thus, prayer was made for his reinstatment along with back wages. ( 3. ) The municipal Council was served by registered post acknowledgment due but it did not appear before the labour Court, ultimately the labour Court proceeded it ex-parte and after recording evidence on the basis of oral and documentary it has found that the workman had rendered continuous services, the order of termination was illegal. The labour Court has passed the impugned award (Ex.P.6) by which labour Court has directed reinstatement with 50% back wages. The said award has been assailed by way of filing the instant writ petition by Municipal Council. ( 4. ) Shri Ashok Lalwani, learned counsel for petitioner, has submitted that in order to assail ex-parte award, the only remedy available is by way of filing writ petition. Labour Court has not ensured that service of notice by other modes except registered post of which acknowledgment (Ex.P.3) which is on record purported to be signed by personnel of Municipal Council does not bear the seal of Municipal Council, Umaria, thus, the labour Court ought to have been cautious to ensure that other modes of services were also resorted to. As the only prayer was made that retrenchment compensation was not paid, thus, the award could have been passed for reinstatement. Only retrenchment compensation could have been ordered to be paid. As the only prayer was made that retrenchment compensation was not paid, thus, the award could have been passed for reinstatement. Only retrenchment compensation could have been ordered to be paid. He has submitted that the finding of labour Court with respect to the permanent status having been acquired by the workman could not have been recorded as permanent status could not have been acquired in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Secretary, State ofKarnataka and others v. Umadevi and others, AIR 2006 SC 1806 . ( 5. ) Shri Shailendra Singh, learned counsel for respondent, has supported the award. He has submitted that there is clear averment that workman had worked on the permanent vacant post of driver inter alia the roster showing vacant post was placed on record, thus, the finding with respect to the appointment, having been made on the vacant post calls for no interference. The workman had rendered continuous service for more than 10 years, thus, services could not have been dispensed with in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Umadevis case also provided for regularization and right is independent under standard standing order on avilability of vacant post, thus, no case for interference in the award is made out. The service of summon was duly affected. Inspite of services no reply was filed, thus, writ petition may be dismissed: ( 6. ) We take up first the submission of petitioners counsel that whether the retrenchment was legally made and retrenchment was not violative of Section 25-F of ID Act. There is evidence on record to indicate that workman was employed in the year 1995 and he was removed on 15.5.2005 without payment of retrechment compensation. The workman has stated that he has rendered continous service and an order was also passed by the Chairman of Municipal Council on 17.3.2005 giving him permanent status. He has also filed the roster indicating that the post of Driver was vacant. He was receiving monthly wages of Rs. 2180/-. Considering the roster and the orders (Ex. P.1 and P.2) which have been filed, in our opinion, it was proved that continuous service was rendered by the workman for more than 240 days in the preceding year, thus, service could not have been dispensed with without due compliance of Section 25-F of the ID Act. ( 7. 2180/-. Considering the roster and the orders (Ex. P.1 and P.2) which have been filed, in our opinion, it was proved that continuous service was rendered by the workman for more than 240 days in the preceding year, thus, service could not have been dispensed with without due compliance of Section 25-F of the ID Act. ( 7. ) Coming to the submission that finding has been recorded that workman had acquired permanent status is also based on evidence. There is clear averment made in the statement of claim that workman had rendered service on clear vacant post which is supported by the document containing roster indicating that there was vacant post available. Moreover the statement of Gopal Prasad Kacher has not been rebutted by the Muncipal Council by adducing evidence, thus, the finding recorded that satisfactory service for requisite period under SSO on the vacant post had been rendered by virtue of which, right of classification permanent employee had been acquired by workman is proper. The office order was passed on 17.3.2005 classifying the workman as permanent Driver which has also not been rebutted. Consequently, finding recorded by labour Court is found to be based on evidence and cannot be said to be perverse also. The reliance has been placed by petitioners counsel on decision of the apex Court in Umadevis case deals with the case of regularization. Even otherwise, on availability of vacant post it does not interdict classification as permanent employee. Here in the instant case regularization has not been ordered, even the permanent status was conferred by employer. The apex Court in State ofM.P. and others v. Onkar Prasad Patel, 2006 (I) Vidhi Bhaswar 162 = (2005) 13 SCC 489 on completion of satisfactory service but in a vacant post upheld classification. InM.P.Housing Board and another v. Manoj Shrivastava, 2006 (2) JLJ 1 = (2006) 2 SCC 702 , the apex Court has laid down that aforesaid both test are cumulative. Both conditions are satisfied in the instant case. The employer had also passed office order classifying workman as permanent before his removal. The apex Court has laid down that under SSO permanent status can be acquired by the workman on the fulfillment of aforesaid twin conditions. ( 8. Both conditions are satisfied in the instant case. The employer had also passed office order classifying workman as permanent before his removal. The apex Court has laid down that under SSO permanent status can be acquired by the workman on the fulfillment of aforesaid twin conditions. ( 8. ) Coming to the submission raised by Municipal Council that Municipal Council was not duly served of summons, we find that service was duly affected, it was not the submission that registered post was not mode prescribed for service of summons, the acknowledgment is on record, it was signed by the personnel of Municipal Council, it was for the Municipal Council to adduce the evidence to show that the service was not affected by employee of Municipal Council, merely seal was missing of the Municipal Council would not be enough to discard presumption of service of registered notice which arises u/s. 114 of the Evidence Act. As to the service of notice summons it was not for the workman to call for concerned employee from the Municipal Council. ( 9. ) Petitioners counsel has lastly submitted that 50% back wages ought not to have been granted, workman has not worked for the period he removed out of employment, he has stated that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere, thus, grant of 50% back wages cannot be said to be illegal in any manner, he was wrongfully deprived of rendering the services, he has rightly been granted 50% back wages. ( 10. ) Resultantly, we find the award which has been passed with 50% back wages is in accordance with law. There is no merit in the writ petition. Same is hereby dismissed. No Costs. Ashok Lalwani for petitioner; Shailendra Singh for respondent.