JUDGMENT 1. - This is an intra Court appeal filed by the writ petitioner of W.P. No. 882/2011 under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952, against an order dated January 31, 2011 passed by the Single Judge in the aforementioned writ petition. 2. By impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant and in consequence upheld the award dated January 20, 2010 passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur in Labour Case No. 24/2005.So the question that arises for consideration in this writ appeal is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the appellant's writ petition and in consequence justified in upholding the award of Labour Court. 3. Having heard learned Counsel for the appellant and having perused record of the case, we find no merit in the appeal and hence, it merits dismissal. 4. It is an appeal arising out of an order passed by writ Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India upholding an award dated January 20, 2010 passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur in case No. 24/2005, whereby the Labour Court was pleased to answer the reference made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short called "The Act") in favour of respondent by directing, reinstatement of the workman in service with consequential benefit to the extent of 30%. 5. As observed supra, consequent upon the termination of respondent who was working as a workmaid in Umaid Hospital, Jodhpur, an industrial reference under Section 10 of the Act 5 was made to Labour Court to decide the legality of termination order. Parties adduced evidence. It was, however, concluded on facts and evidence by the Labour Court that the respondent has worked continuously for more than 240 days in one calendar year, that no charge-sheet or any departmental inquiry was held prior to his (sic. her) termination, that no notice as contemplated by Section 25-FF ibid and therefore, it was a case of dismissal without any basis or charge. This award was challenged by appellant by filing a writ. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and upheld he award. It is against this order, the appellant has felt aggrieved and filed this appeal. 6. Firstly, it is admitted by the appellant that respondent was working in the establishment of appellant. This award was challenged by appellant by filing a writ. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and upheld he award. It is against this order, the appellant has felt aggrieved and filed this appeal. 6. Firstly, it is admitted by the appellant that respondent was working in the establishment of appellant. Secondly, it is again a question of fact and once it was gone into on facts before the Labour Court against the appellant and upheld by writ Court, then the same cannot be gone into in appeal. Lastly, even on facts and evidence, this finding is unassailable calling no interference in writ jurisdiction. Similarly, the respondent has discharged her initial burden by proving the fact that she worked continuously for more than 240 days in one Calendar year. 7. In our opinion, these findings are the only findings which need to be rendered on fact and evidence while answering the reference made by State to the Labour Court. Indeed, in order to attract the provisions of Labour Laws, these are the only issues which need to be examined on facts on both sides. As observed supra, if the termination of an employee is based on no charge and inquiry and when it is not by way of punishment, then it becomes a case of illegal retrenchment. If it is proved on facts that an employee continuously has worked for more than 240 days in one calendar year then she is entitled to have the protection of Labour Laws provided the employer is an industry as recognised under Labour Laws. 8. Moreover, the findings of fact recorded by Labour Court and upheld by Writ Court are neither perverse to this extent that no judicial man of average capacity can record, nor they are against record nor any provision of law. In other words the finding of facts recorded by Labour Court and upheld by Writ Court are findings which are capable of being recorded on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties. It is for these reasons, these findings are binding on Writ Court and also on this Court while hearing appeal arising out of order passed by Writ Court. 9. It is not in dispute that appellant is a State and subjected to Labour Laws and, therefore, an Industrial Reference was validly made to Labour Court for adjudication of termination order under Section 10 ibid. 10. 9. It is not in dispute that appellant is a State and subjected to Labour Laws and, therefore, an Industrial Reference was validly made to Labour Court for adjudication of termination order under Section 10 ibid. 10. In our opinion, therefore, the direction to reinstate the workman respondent in service with all consequential benefits to the extent of 30% passed by the Labour Court and upheld by 'Writ Court is just, reasonable and proper. 11. Learned Counsel for the appellant did not raise any other plea on facts or in law before the Labour Court or in this Court except what is taken note of supra.In view of aforesaid discussion the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine.Appeal dismissed. *******