JUDGMENT : S.R. Brahmbhatt, J. Rule. Rule is fixed forthwith at the request of learned counsels for the parties, as short point is involved in the petition and both the sides were ready for finally deciding the matter. The petitioner Dhrol Taluka Panchayat, through its Taluka Development Officer has approached this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award dated 21/4/2009 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamnagar in Reference (LCJ) 48/2000, where under Labour Court has partly allowed the reference and ordered reinstatement with 10% back wages and continuity of service, and also awarded cost of Rs.750/- 2. The facts in brief deserve to be set out in order to appreciate the controversy involved in the petition. 1. It was the case of the respondent-workman that he was working as Typist in the office of respondent since 16/12/1991 at the wage of Rs.750/- per month. Though his work was satisfactory, he came to be terminated vide order dated 21/8/1999. The dispute was raised which was referred to competent Court, wherein it was numbered as Reference (LCJ) 48/2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Reference'). The petitioner as well as the respondent filed their respective written statement and statement of claim. It was contended on behalf of the workman that the work of typing is still continuing and respondent had work of typing nature which is perennial and therefore he ought not to have been terminated. Work of tying is being contracted out now through outside agency only with a view to deprive present workman of his right to be reinstated and continued as such. 2. It was the contention of the other side that, present petitioner was engaged merely as a part-time worker, no question of issuing notice etc was arisen. As there was no work, he was required to be terminated. It was further contented that the workman was not entitled to any protection available under the provisions of I.D. Act 1947. 3. The Labour Court has recorded its finding with regard to respondent being in continuous service and held that as there was clear breach of section 25-F, the order impugned terminating services of the workman was held to be bad in law, and on that count ordering reinstatement with 10% back wages and awarding Rs.750/- towards cost is required to be quashed and set aside. 4. 4. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the workman was merely a part-time employee and therefore he did not have any right to seek protection under provision of I.D. Act 1947. The petitioner being an agency and instrumentality of the State is required to follow due procedure of law for making appointment to various posts existing on establishment. There could be various questions needed to be examined that whether the employee was on sanctioned post, whether his employment was pursuant to any due procedure of law and after due procedure of selection. The workman therefore did not have right to be reinstated to his post. 5. Shri Mukesh Dave, learned advocate appearing for the respondent-workman on caveat submitted under instructions that the workman is ready & willing to give up his claim for back-wages in its entirety and therefore, with this submission the reinstatement which is ex-facie bad may be examined. Shri. Dave further submitted that the reinstatement will merely entitle the workman to receive his wages which he used to receive on earlier occasion before he was terminated. That in itself would not be a great burden upon the petitioners Panchayat. The Panchayat being required to take typing work from outside agency on contract basis, then it is all the more in the interest of justice that present workman be continued and be given work of typing and the workman be paid the wages which he used to get earlier before termination. 6. He reiterated his submission with regard to readiness & willingness to give up back wages in case this Court is not disturbing the award of reinstatement. He submitted that non-disturbing of reinstatement may not take away right of the petitioner in dealing with the workman in accordance with law which will have its own repercussions and workman will have appropriate remedy there against. 7. This Court has heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record of the file. The findings of the Labour Court in para no.9 onwards go to show that the factum with regard to workman being originally employed as typist has not been disputed or disproved. Vide order at Annexure-9 present respondent-workman came to be appointed, his termination order is pursuant to resolution dated 21/8/1999 produced at page-12 in the petition. The findings of the Labour Court in para no.9 onwards go to show that the factum with regard to workman being originally employed as typist has not been disputed or disproved. Vide order at Annexure-9 present respondent-workman came to be appointed, his termination order is pursuant to resolution dated 21/8/1999 produced at page-12 in the petition. The Labour Court has further recorded in its finding that even the workman was permitted to enjoy some time leave with pay and he was paid wages on the sanctioning of leave he enjoyed. The main plank of the findings of the Labour Court is with regard to workman continuously serving and discharging his duties for more than 240 days in the preceding year of his retrenchment. That being so he ought not to have been retrenched without following due procedure of law. 8. This Court is of the view that in light of the aforesaid findings, petitioner would not be justified in contenting that the workman was not entitled to receive compensation as envisaged under provision of Section 25-F of I.D. Act 1947. Industrial Disputes Act does not make any distinction between part-timer or full-timer. It is in respect of the employment in a unit and as such on that basis one can say that the reasoning adopted by the Labour Court cannot be said to be so perverse as to make any interference therewith under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. So far as the finding with regard to breach of provision of Section 25-F and the order of reinstatement is concerned, with regard to 10% back wages the respondent workman has already submitted under instructions that he is ready & willing to give up 10% back wages awarded, and therefore, this Court is of the view that the petition deserves to be partly allowed by modifying the award dated 21/4/2009 as under. 9. The workman will have to be reinstated by the petitioners as ordered by the Labour Court in its award dated 21/4/2009. However the respondent-workman would not be entitled to any back wages whatsoever. Petitioner will be at liberty to take appropriate action, including terminating the workman's services after reinstatement, if so warranted in the given facts & circumstances, and after following due procedure of law. However the respondent-workman would not be entitled to any back wages whatsoever. Petitioner will be at liberty to take appropriate action, including terminating the workman's services after reinstatement, if so warranted in the given facts & circumstances, and after following due procedure of law. This order of reinstatement confirmed by this Court would not in any way come in the way of the petitioners in dealing with the workman in accordance with law, as the award is merely based upon non-compliance with mandatory provision of Section 25-F of I.D. Act 1947. In this view of the matter, the petition is partly allowed. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent, with no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.