JUDGMENT 1. - This special appeal arises out of the judgment dated 22-2-2007, whereby the learned Single Judge has modified the award of Labour Court dated 29-3-2001, and has directed the appellant to give an opportunity of re-employment to the respondent, Gopal, within a period of two months from the date of the judgment. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent, Gopal, claimed that on 1-7-1977, he was appointed as a Beldar in Public Works Department (`PWD', for short). He continued to discharge his duties till 30-8-1989. However, on 30-8-1989, his services were terminated without giving him any notice of one month, or salary in lieu thereof, and without giving him the retrenchment compensation. Aggrieved by the termination order, an industrial dispute was raised, which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. Vide award dated 29-3-2001, the learned Labour Court dismissed the claim of the respondent, and held his termination to be legal and valid. Aggrieved by the said award, Gopal filed a writ petition before this court. Vide order dated 22-2-2007, the learned Single Judge has modified the award as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal by the State before this Court. 3. Mr. N.A. Naqvi, the learned Additional Advocate General, has vehemently contended that learned Single Judge has erred in concluding that the appellant had violated the requirement of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (`the Act', for short). After going through the evidence produced before the Labour Court, the learned Labour Court had clearly concluded that the workman has not been able to show as to who were the persons, who were continued in service, or who were persons, who were freshly recruited after his dismissal from service. According to learned counsel, the learned Single Judge has not stated any reason for disagreeing with the finding given by the Labour Court. 4. On the other hand, Mr. D.C.Gupta, the learned counsel for the respondent has strenuously contended that there is no reason for the state to be aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has issued only an innocuous direction "to give an opportunity of re-employment to the workman". In fact, the State has already given a fresh appointment to the workman after due consideration, and the workman is presently working in the department. 5. Mr. The learned Single Judge has issued only an innocuous direction "to give an opportunity of re-employment to the workman". In fact, the State has already given a fresh appointment to the workman after due consideration, and the workman is presently working in the department. 5. Mr. Naqvi, the learned Additional Advocate General, has not controverted the aforesaid contention submitted by the learned counsel for the workman. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record. 7. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment clearly reveals that the learned Single Judge has clearly noted that according to Labour Court, the workman joined the service on 3-11-1986, and his services were terminated on 30-8-1989. This finding about the workman respondent having been appointed in 1986 is based upon the pleadings of his appointment in the earlier writ petition before this court, where the appellant had stated that the respondent was appointed in 1986, and not in 1977, as claimed by the workman. However, Ramphool, who was appointed on 1- 8-1987, was made permanent on 15-2-1999. Thus, clearly the provision of 25-H of the Act was violated. It is, in this view of the facts, the learned Single Judge had directed the appellant to give an opportunity of re-employment to the workman. 8. Moreover, since the appellant has already re-employed the workman, this Court need not interfere with the impugned judgment. 9. Therefore, the special appeal, being devoid of any merits, stands dismissed.Special Appeal Dismissed. *******