JUDGMENT 1. - The appropriate Government by a notification dated 25.5.2006 referred an industrial dispute to Labour Court, Sriganganagar in following terms:- D;k lsok lekfIr ds 18 o"kZ i'pkr~ fookn mBkuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gS\ ;fn gka rks D;k Jfed Jh tx:i flag iq= Jh tksjkflag jkexf<;k fuoklh vjk;.k rglhy dj.kiqj ftyk Jh xaxkuxj dks vizkFkhZx.k la[;k 1 lgk;d vfHk;ark xzkeh.k ty ;kstuk ih0,p0bZ0Mh0 Jh xaxkuxj 2- vf/k'kk"kh vfHk;ark] xzkeh.k [k.M ih0,p0bZ0Mh0 Jh xaxkuxj }kjk fnukad 1-11-86 dks lsokeqDr fd;k x;k\ ;fn gka rks D;k lsokeqDr fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gS\ ;fn ugha rks Jfed fdl jkgr dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 2. The dispute was answered vide award dated 10.6.2009 and the same acquired finality on publication of it as per Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947' hereinafter) by the appropriate Government on 9.11.2009. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner-workman is that the Labour Court erred while not examining the issue relating to violation of provisions of Section 25G of the Act of 1947, the issue relating to violation of provisions of Section 25H and also erred while reaching at the conclusion that the workman was not in continuous service of the employer as defined under Section 25B of the Act of 1947. 4. I have examined the award impugned and also the other documents annexed with the writ petition. So far as the finding relating to continuous service is concerned, suffice it to mention that the labour court considered all the muster-roll made available to it and then give a finding of fact that it is not at all perverse or having such error that may warrant interference of this Court while exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction. 5. I do not find any merit in the argument advanced relating to violation of provisions of Section 25G in view of the fact that the statement given by the petitioner by way of submitting an affidavit itself is quite vague. The workman simply stated that persons junior to him were allowed to continue in service without providing necessary details in this regard. Such assertion is permissible in statement of claim, but not in affidavit that being a definite statement of fact. 6. The workman simply stated that persons junior to him were allowed to continue in service without providing necessary details in this regard. Such assertion is permissible in statement of claim, but not in affidavit that being a definite statement of fact. 6. The argument relating to violation of Section 25H of the Act of 1947 has rightly not been considered by the Labour Court, as the violation of provisions of Section 25F in no manner makes the retrenchment made earlier bad. The provisions of Section 25H are relating to preference while making re-employment. In the instant matter, no reference was made by the appropriate Government for adjudication of the issue relating to reemployment. 7. In such circumstance, even by ignoring the question of delay of 18 years in raising the dispute, I do not find any merit in this petition for writ. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******