JUDGMENT 1. - To assail validity, correctness and propriety of the award dated 23.9.2000 passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur in Labour Case No. 149/96, this petition for writ is preferred. 2. The appropriate Government under its notification dated 17.10.1996 referred an industrial disputes for its adjudication to the Labour Court in the terms that, "Whether the Director, Agriculture Research Institute, Udaipur/ Incharge Officer, Agriculture Research Station, Sumerpur, Distt. Pali are just and valid in terminating their workman Sona Ram S/o Lakma Ram Ji from service w.e.f. 4.4.1993. If not, then for what relief and amount, the workman is entitled?" 3. The workman in his statement of claim came forward with the case that he remained in employment of the employer from 1984 to 1993 and he wrote to Vice-chancellor, Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner on 1.4.1991 for regularising his services, however, no action thereon was taken though a decision was taken by the competent committee of the University on 3.5.1991 to prepare a list of the existing workman for regularisation of services. The employer subsequent thereto on 4.4.1993, by an oral order terminated the workman from service, which is nothing but retrenchment as defined under section 2(oo) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947' hereinafter). As per the workman his retrenchment was made without adhering the provisions of sections 25-F and 25-G of the Act of 1947. 4. In written statement, the employer stated that the workman was employed for seasonal needs and he never completed 240 days in a one calendar year. The employer also stated that the workman left the service at his own and as such there was no question of his retrenchment from service. On behalf of the parties, evidence was adduced and after considering the same, the Court reached at the conclusion that the workman was in continuous service for a period of more than one year with the employer and he was retrenched without following mandatory condition precedent to do so. A direction was accordingly given for his reinstatement with 25% amount of the back wages. 5. A direction was accordingly given for his reinstatement with 25% amount of the back wages. 5. While challenging the award impugned, the contention of Shri Basti Chand Bhansali, learned Counsel for the petitioner are that - (1) the respondent-workman never completed 240 days in a calender year, thus, in the present case, the Labour Court erred while applying the provisions 25-F of the Act of 1947, and (2) the Labour Court failed to appreciate that the workman left the service at his own and as a matter of fact there was no action on the part of the employer terminating the workman from service. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced and also examined the record available. 7. So far as first contention of the petitioner is concerned, suffice it to say that the respondent-workman was admittedly working with the employer since 1984 and as such, there is no need to compute days as per section 25-B(ii) of the Act of 1947. The requirement of computing days is necessary when the workman does not complete services for entire one calendar year. In the instant case, such is not a position as even according to the employer the workman was in service since 1984. At the most, the employer could have stated that the workman was having interruption and as such was not in continuation of service. However, no foundation in this regard is led in the written statement: 8. The other argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court failed to appreciate that the workman himself left services is also of no consequence as the Labour Court gave a specific finding of fact by examining the evidence available on record and such finding of fact is not required to be interfered by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction. 9. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any error with the award impugned that may warrant interference of this Court, accordingly, the petition for writ is dismissed. *******