Hon'ble ASOPA, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner-Divisional Engineer, Telecom Project, Jodhpur has challenged the Award dated 1.8.2000 (Annex. 3) passed by the Central Industrial Tribunal, Kota (hereinafter to be referred as the "Tribunal") in Reference Case No. IT/Central/3/96 whereby the Tribunal has declared that the termination of the services of the respondent-workman vide order-dated 30.6.1988 was not justified and legal and therefore, declared him entitled to be reinstated with continuity in service only with 30 per cent back wags from 11.4.1994 on account of delay in filing the application before the Conciliation Officer. 3. The Tribunal vide its Award dated 1.8.2000 (Annex. 3) has held that Telecom Department is an `industry' and simply because the respondent-workman was working on daily wages, he could not be denied the status of a workman. The aforesaid finding is based on two judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court namely General Manager, Telecom vs. S. Sriniwasrao & Ors. reported in AIR 1998 S.C. Page 656 and Rattan Singh vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in 1998 (Vol. 3) (LLJ) (Suppl.), 714. 4. The petitioner-department has challenged the aforesaid Award of the Tribunal in the writ petition stating therein that the Telecom Department is not an `industry' within the meaning of Sec. 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the `Act of 1947') and further the respondent is a daily wager, therefore, he is not covered by the definition of `workman' under Sec. 2(s) of the Act of 1917 and has not completed 240 days in a particular division in the last preceding one year, therefore, the provision of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 is not applicable. 5. The respondent-workman in the statement of claim before the Tribunal, has categorically submitted that he was employed as daily wage worker for cabin Line Work in the petitioner-department in March, 1987 and that he worked upto June, 1988, thus he completed 240 days in the last preceding one year and further his services were retrenched without following the provision of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. 6. 6. Both the parties have adduced the evidence and after consideration of the evidence, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the respondent-workman has completed 240 days in the last preceding one year and further, on the legal issue, the Tribunal has held that the Telecom Department is not discharging any sovereign functions, rather it is engaged in commercial activities, hence it is covered under the definition of `industry' under section 2(j) of Act of 1947, as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Telecom vs. S. Sriniwasrao & Ors. reported in AIR 1998 SC Page 656 and Rattan Singh vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in 1998 (Vol. 3) (LLJ) (Suppl.) 714 on the issue that simply a worker working on daily wages will not be outside the purview of the definition of workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 7. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner-department is that the Telecom Department is neither an `industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act of 1947 nor the respondent being a daily wager is a `workman' under Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947. 8. The submission of the counsel for the respondent-workman is that the Telecom Department is engaged in commercial activities, therefore, it is an `industry' as per the aforesaid Apex Court judgment in General Manager, Telecom vs. S. Sriniwasrao & Ors. and simply because the respondent No. 2 was working as a daily wager, the will not cease to be covered by the definition of "workman" within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947 as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rattan Singh vs. Union of India & Anr. (supra). Counsel further submits that the Tribunal has rightly given its finding. Counsel for the respondent-workman however, submits that the workman is prepared to forgo 30 per cent back wages. 9. I have gone through the record of the writ petition and further considered the aforesaid submissions of the parties. 10. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to quote the relevant portions of the judgments in General Manager, Telecom vs. S. Sriniwasrao & Ors. reported in AIR 1998 SC Page 656 and Rattan Singh vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in 1998 (Vol. 3) (LLJ) (Suppl.) 714. 10. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to quote the relevant portions of the judgments in General Manager, Telecom vs. S. Sriniwasrao & Ors. reported in AIR 1998 SC Page 656 and Rattan Singh vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in 1998 (Vol. 3) (LLJ) (Suppl.) 714. The same are as under:- Para 6, of General Manager, Telecom vs. S. Sriniwasrao & Ors. AIR 1998 SC 656 "6. It is rightly not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant that according to this test the Telecommunication Department of the Union of India is an `industry' within that definition because it is engaged in a commercial activity and the Department is not engaged in discharging any of the sovereign functions of the State." Para 3 of Rattan Singh vs. Union of India & Anr. (supra). "3......Since he was a workman, he was entitled to the protection of Section 25-F of the Act and the said protection could not be denied to him on the ground that he was a daily - rated worker. It is not the case of the respondents that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were complied with while terminating the services of the appellant. In these circumstances, the termination of services of the appellant cannot be upheld and has to be set aside." 11. On a perusal of the Award passed by the Labour Court, I am of the view that the Labour Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the Telecom Department is an "industry" and the respondent is a "workman" within the meaning of Sections 2(j) and 2(s) respectively of the Act of 1947 and further the respondent-workman has completed 240 days in the last preceding calendar year. 12. Since, the respondent-workman has forgone 30 per cent backwages, therefore, the Award of the Tribunal is modified as follows:- "The termination of the services of the respondent-workman on 30.6.1988 is not justified and legal and the respondent-workman is entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity in service." 13. The writ petition is disposed of.