JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against the award dated 28.1.2005 passed by the Industrial Dispute Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Udaipur in Industrial Dispute Case No. 18/01 whereby the Tribunal while holding the termination of the respondent-workman w.e.f. 26.3.1988 as invalid has directed reinstatement of the respondent-workman on the post of Beldar with continuity of service and 50% of the back-wages from' the date of termination till the date of reinstatement in service. 2. The Appropriate Government vide notification No. ,Q 1(1)(6) gkbZdksVZ@,e */2001 dated 27.1.2001 referred the dispute for adjudication to the labour Court, Udaipur in the following terms:- " D;k fu;kstu vf/k'kk"kh vfHk;ark dkseu flfoy oDlZ [k.M ekQZr eq[; vfHk;ark ekgh ifj;kstuk ckalokM+k }kjk Jfed Jh dkfy;k iq= Jh gjth mez 39 o"kZ tkfr vkfnoklh fuoklh ykykokM+k ftyk ckalokM+k dks fnukad 26-3-1988 ls lsokeqDr fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gS\ ;fn ugha rks Jfed fdl jkgr ,oa jkf'k dks izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ " 3. The respondent-workman entered into services of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1970, The petitioner published a seniority list wherein the respondent-workman's date of appointment was mentioned as 1.5.1985 instead of 1.1.1979 and accordingly his name was shown at serial No. 496 and while taking a decision to retrench the employees employed during the period 1.5.1985 to 30.9.1988, the services of the respondent-workman were brought to an end. 4. The respondent-workman challenged the retrenchment on the ground that as per the order of the Government only those workmen were to be retrenched who were appointed after 1.4.1985. That apart, he had also taken the ground that the workmen junior to him in the establishments are still continuing in service while his services have been terminated. 5. The petitioner while contesting the claim before the Labour Court denied that the petitioner continued in service from 1.1.1979 to 26.3.1988. The objection awarding raising of the dispute with inordinate delay was also taken. 6. After due consideration of the evidence on record, the Labour Court It found that the Government's directions were only in respect of the workmen appointed after 1.5.1985, whereas the respondent-workmen was Initially appointed on 1.1.1979 and the persons junior to him were still continuing in service and therefore, there is clear violation of provisions of section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Accordingly, the labour Court found the petitioner entitled for reinstatement, in service, however, taking into consideration the delay in raising the dispute, the payment of back-wages was restricted to 50%. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the finding arrived at by the labour Court is ex-facie contrary to record and perverse. It is submitted that the dispute was raised by the workman after an inordinate delay of 13 years and therefore, he was not entitled to be reinstated in service. 8. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-workman submits that the findings recorded by the Labour Court are findings of fact and the same do not warrant any interference by this Court. Learned Counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the controversy Involved stands set at rest by a Bench decision of this Court dated 11.2.2005 rendered in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 84/05 "State of Rajasthan v. Ramesh and another" and, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this Court atone. Learned Counsel submitted that so far the delay in raising the dispute is concerned, the respondent-workman is ready to for ego the 3 back-wages awarded by the tribunal. 9. It is to be noticed that the Labour Court has arrived at categorical findings on the basis of documentary evidence placed on record that the person junior to the workman had been retained in service at the time of retrenchment. It is not disputed before this Court that the petitioner had taken a decision to retrench 416 employees who were recruited during the period 1.4.1985 to 30.9.1988. Thus, the respondent-workman being an appointee prior to 1.4.1985 could not have been retrenched from service. That apart, the Labour Court has also arrived at the finding that in the seniority list published, the respondent- workman's name is mentioned at serial No. 496 whereas workman Pavel S/o Phoolji whose name appears at serial No. 526 in the seniority list was continued in service. Thus, it was a clear case of violation of provisions of section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. That apart, it is not disputed by learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the controversy involved in the present petition stands covered by Bench decision of this Court in Ramesh's case (supra). 10. Thus, it was a clear case of violation of provisions of section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. That apart, it is not disputed by learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the controversy involved in the present petition stands covered by Bench decision of this Court in Ramesh's case (supra). 10. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner shall not be entitled for any back-wages in terms of the impugned award for the period, from the date of termination till the date of passing of the award. Impugned award dated 28.1.2005 passed by the Labour Court, Udaipur shall stand modified accordingly.Petition disposed of and award modified as above. *******