JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur and other officials. In the writ petition, the petitioners are challenging aware dated 11.10.2004 passed by learned Judge, Labour Court, Srigangangar, which is said to have been notified on 25.05.2005. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a reference was made on 27.05.2004 by the appropriate Government to learned Judge, Labour Court, Srigangangar, by which, following question was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court: " D;k Jfed Jh d'".k dqekj iq= Jh lghjke dqEgkj fuoklh xzke iksLV lkcqvkuk rg0 fVCch ftyk guqekux<+ ( 2 ) lgk;d vfHk;Urk flapkbZ mi[k.M guqekux<+ }kjk fnukad 05-12-1988 dks lsokeqfDr mfpr ,oa oS/k gS\ ;fn ugha rks Jfed fdl jkgr ,oa jkf'k dks ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ " 3. Learned Judge, Labour Court, after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties, finally decided the reference and set aside the termination order of the workman dated 05.12.1988 and passed order for his reinstatement in service with 50% back-wages from the date of reference 27.05.2004. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that in this case the reference was made by the appropriate Government after 15 years from the date of alleged termination order. Further, it is argued that learned Labour Court has committed serious error while holding respondent workman as initially appointed with effect from 01.01.1985, in fact, the respondent workman was engaged on 10.07.1987 and he was given one month's salary in lieu of the notice at the time of his termination from service, therefore, the award impugned deserves to be quashed on this ground because the finding arrived at by the learned Labour Court is perverse. 5. It is also pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners that in this case the learned Judge, Labour Court has committed serious error in holding that provisions of rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes Rules has not been complied with. Submission of learned counsel for the State is that services of respondent workman were terminated in pursuance of order dated 17.11.1988 after following the procedure laid down in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, therefore, the aware passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court is erroneous. Hence, the award may be quashed. 6. Submission of learned counsel for the State is that services of respondent workman were terminated in pursuance of order dated 17.11.1988 after following the procedure laid down in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, therefore, the aware passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court is erroneous. Hence, the award may be quashed. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent workman vehemently contended that the contention of the petitioner Department with regard to delay of 15 years is totally baseless because before the learned Judge, Labour Court, the delay was explained while submitting correct fact for the delay. In para 7, learned Labour Court has elaborately dealt with the question of delay that no doubt reference has been made by the appropriate Government after 15 years but before that the petitioner had preferred writ petition before this Court which was dismissed on 15.09.1989, thereafter, the matter was carried to Hon'ble Supreme Court and judgment was delivered on 12.09.1990, whereby, appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, Gang Nahar Rashtriya Mazdoor Union raised the Industrial Dispute and, then, the matter was communicated to the appropriate Government from where reference was made to learned Judge, Labour Court by the appropriate Government. Learned Judge, Labour Court after discussing the entire facts gave finding that workman cannot be denied justice on the ground of delay and after giving such finding the learned Labour Court proceeded to adjudicate the matter. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-workman vehemently argued that while leading evidence it was proved by the workman that he was appointed initially on 01.01.1985 and his services were terminated with effect from 05.12.1988, therefore the compensation was to be calculated while taking into consideration four years of his service but it has not been done, therefore, the termination was found to be illegal by the learned Judge, Labour Court and finding arrived at by learned Labour Court at para 11 of the award does not suffer from any illegality, Further, it is argued that before terminating the services of respondent workman there was complete non-compliance of Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes Rules, so also, as per the finding given by the Tribunal, there was complete violation of Section 25F (a) and (b) , therefore, the finding arrived at by the learned Judge, Labour Court does not require any interference. 8. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-workman invited my attention towards the fact that identical matter was decided by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Sriganganagar, in which, award was passed and that award was challenged before this Court by the State in the case of State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Irrigation Department v. Laxman Singh . Learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the State against the reinstatement order of Laxman Singh made by the Labour Court in identical situation and said writ petition, being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2061/2001, was decided on 05.07.2002, against which, appeal was preferred before the Division Bench being D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 4311/2011 which has been decided by the Division Bench on 28.05.2003 by which the Division Bench dismissed the appeal filed by the Government. In this view of matter, it is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- workman that award passed by the learned Judge Court does not suffer from any illegality, therefore, this writ petition may be dismissed. 9. I have considered the rival submissions made by both the parties. 10. In my opinion, for the delay there is elaborate discussion in para 7 of the award passed by Labour Court dated 11.10.2004. After perusal of the finding, I am of the opinion that finding arrived at on factual aspect of the matter does not require any interference because learned Labour Court gave finding after taking into consideration entire record of the case that respondent was appointed on 01.01.1985, therefore, obviously at the time of termination of services on 05.12.1988 compensation was to be calculated as per provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act; but, in this case, only one month's salary was paid to the workman and compensation was not calculated in accordance with Section 25F (a) and (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, in my opinion, the finding arrived at by the learned Judge, Labour Court does not, suffer from any illegality. Learned Judge, Labour Court while discussing all the facts of the case held that termination of the workman's services with effect from 05.12.1988 was bad in the eye of law because there was complete violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, so also, Rule 77 of the Rules whereby Seniority-List was to be published was also violated. Learned Judge, Labour Court while discussing all the facts of the case held that termination of the workman's services with effect from 05.12.1988 was bad in the eye of law because there was complete violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, so also, Rule 77 of the Rules whereby Seniority-List was to be published was also violated. Therefore, the finding upon the fact, on the basis of which, the award is passed does not require any interference. So also, the case of respondent-workman gets strength on the ground that in identical situation, in the case of Laxman Singh belonging to the same Irrigation Department, in which, up to the Division Bench, the award passed by the learned judge, Labour Court was affirmed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 4311, decided on 28.05.2003. In this view of the matter, on case is made out for interference. 11. It is also worthwhile to observe here that co-ordinate Bench of this Court, on 22.07.2010, granted time to learned counsel for' the petitioner to ascertain whether other similarly situated workmen have been reinstated by the Irrigation Department or not; but, no information whatsoever, has been, furnished by the petitioners and, on the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent workman apprised this Court that in identical situation/in Laxman Singh's case, Irrigation Department lost the battle and reinstated Laxman Singh in Service. 12. In this view of the matter, there is no force in this writ petition. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******