JUDGMENT 1. - At the request of learned counsel for the parties, the final arguments were heard and writ petition is being disposed of. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned award dated 26th May, 2000 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur, camp Alwar, whereby the respondent no.1 Smt. Jeeto Devi has been ordered to be reinstated in service with continuity of service. While setting-aside the order of her termination dated 1st December, 1988, the arrears of salary and allowances have been ordered to be paid w.e.f. 1st March, 1993. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent no.1 did not work for 240 days in any calender year and she did not work after 30th November, 1988. The objection about late filing of claim petition has also been raised. 4. The respondents have defended the impugned award passed by the Labour Court. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The Labour court has calculated the actual working days of respondent no.1 in 12 calender months soon before 1st December, 1987 and has recorded a finding that even from the evidence of employer, the workman worked for 279.5 days, wherein the weekly holidays and other holidays have not been added, therefore, it is clear that she has worked for more than 240 days regularly in 12 calender months. The Labour Court has relied upon the statement of employer's witnesses namely Sampatram, Jai Kishan Jat, Kalyan Sahai Sharma and Matadeen, the copies of which have been placed on record by the petitioner, but no perversity has been pointed out in the finding of the Labour Court. So far as late filing of claim is concerned, the Labour Court has observed that industrial dispute was raised on 27th February, 1993, hence the arrears will be paid w.e.f. 1st March, 1993. 6. The finding of the Labour Court in respect of actual working days i.e. more than 240 days, on which workman worked, is purely a question of fact and the said finding is based on the statement of employer's witnesses themselves, referred above, and the said finding of fact cannot be interfered by this Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. So far as late raising of industrial dispute is concerned, the Labour Court has already taken care of it and has not awarded any arrears for the period prior to 1st March, 1993. In these circumstances, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned award so as to interfere with the same. 7. The learned counsel for both the parties admit that the respondent no.1 workman did not work with petitioner during the period the industrial dispute remained pending before the Labour Court and also before this Court as interim stay order was passed by this court against impugned award, hence I think it fit and proper to modify the award of Labour Court about payment of arrears of salary w.e.f. 1.3.1993 and direct that workman will be paid arrears of salary/back wages to the extent of 50% only from 1.3.1993 till date. The workman be reinstated immediately and be paid salary/wages as per direction of the Labour Court. 8. With the aforesaid modification, the writ petition is partly allowed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. 9. In view of above, the stay order dated 27.4.2001 is vacated and the stay application, filed therewith, stands disposed of.Writ Petition Partly Allowed. *******