JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge The award passed on 6.4.2009 by learned Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as ‘Labour Court’ in short), in Reference No. 14 of 2006 is under challenge in the present writ petition on the grounds inter-alia that the evidence available on record has been misread and the case law has not been appreciated in its right perspective. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner right from his initial engagement as Beldar, on daily wage basis on 2nd September, 1996 continued as such till 24.5.1999, no doubt as per the version of the respondent-Board without completing 240 days in a calendar year. Since the petitioner who was disengaged on and w.e.f. 25.5.1999, admittedly without issuing any notice and payment of compensation, he raised dispute within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act. The appropriate Government made a reference to the Labour Court which reads as follows: “Whether the termination of services of Shri Surinder Singh S/o Sh. Vijay Singh workman by the Executive Engineer, HPSEB, Division Rampur Bushehr, District Shimla, HP w.e.f. 25.5.1999 without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is proper and justified? If not, what relief of service benefits and amount of compensation the above aggrieved workman is entitled to ?” 3. While the petitioner in support of statement of claim filed before the Labour Court below has relied upon the chart showing the days for which he worked on daily wage basis during the period 1996 to 1999, the respondent-Board has placed on record chart Annexure RA-1 prepared on the basis of details of payment of wages made to him. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the Court below has framed issues and recorded evidence. 5. If coming to the evidence produced on both sides, the petitioner has himself stepped in the witness box as PW-1 and examined Sh. Roop Ram, Junior Assistant in the office of respondent-Board at Jagat Khana as PW-2. The respondent-Board on the other hand has examined Shri Anil Bansal, Additional Assistant Engineer, H.P.S.E.B, Rampur. The Court below on the basis of evidence available on record has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner has failed to prove the violation of provisions contained under Section 25-F of the Act and also that the persons junior to him have been retained and answered the reference in negative. 6. The Court below on the basis of evidence available on record has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner has failed to prove the violation of provisions contained under Section 25-F of the Act and also that the persons junior to him have been retained and answered the reference in negative. 6. The re-appraisal of the evidence makes it crystal clear that the petitioner-workman, worked continuously right from his initial engagement on 2nd September, 1996 till his retrenchment on and w.e.f. 25.5.1999. It has come so in his own statement while in the witness box as PW-1. The suggestion that he never completed 240 days in any calendar year and that in 1997 he worked only for 198 days, 213 days in 1998 and 146 days in 1999, as put to him in his cross-examination were denied being wrong. If coming to the version of PW-2 who is none else but Junior Assistant on the establishment of the respondent-Board, he has proved the facts such as the petitioner has worked for 29 days in June/July, 1998, for 30 days in July/August, 1998 and for 27 days in August/September, 1998 in Jagat Khana Sub Division. Nothing is suggested to him in cross-examination that his testimony to this effect is not correct or that petitioner did not work in Jagat Khana Sub Division during the period June-July, July-August and August-September, 1998. To the contrary, Sh. M.L. Bansal, Additional Assistant Engineer, the only witness examined by the respondent-Board also states that petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis on 2nd September, 1996 in the Rampur Sub Division and he continued till 24.5.1999. 7. No doubt, petitioner never completed 240 working days in a preceding calendar year. The chart Annexure RA-1 to the reply Annexure P-2 prepared by the respondent-Board coupled with the statement of PW-2 makes it crystal clear that during the block of 12 calendar months from the date of retrenchment of the petitioner he continuously worked for 320 days. Be it stated that in the chart Annexure RA-1, there is no mention of the days the petitioner worked in Jagat Khana Sub Divison of respondent-Board during the month of June-July, July-August and August-September, 1998. As per the version of PW-2, petitioner remained working as Beldar on daily wage basis in Jagat Khana Sub Division of the respondent-Board under the same circle i.e. Rampur during this period. As per the version of PW-2, petitioner remained working as Beldar on daily wage basis in Jagat Khana Sub Division of the respondent-Board under the same circle i.e. Rampur during this period. The Labour Court below should have counted these days plus the days as per Annexure RA-1, he worked in Rampur Sub Division of the respondent- Board preceding 12 months from his retrenchment. True it is that chart Annexure RA-1 is not an exhibited document. The fact, however, remains that this document prepared by the respondent-Board itself and relied upon also in its reply filed to the statement of claim filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court below. The same can thus be read in evidence. Otherwise also, taking into consideration that proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, beneficial in nature such technicalities should not weigh in the mind of the Court nor to come in the way of a workman, and if he otherwise is entitled to the grant of some relief he must get it. The rule of evidence in its strict sense is also not required to be applied in a proceedings before the Labour Court, which as a matter of fact conducts an inquiry summarily under the Act. There is thus ample evidence to suggest that preceding the block of 12 calendar months from his retrenchment, the petitioner had worked for a period more than 240 days. Similarly, the engagement of the person namely Shri Nihal Singh, junior to the petitioner also stands established from his own statement, as no suggestion has been put to him in his cross-examination that Shri Nihal Singh was not junior to him nor was he retained in employment after his retrenchment. He rather further clarified in his cross-examination that said junior was engaged after his engagement. The Labour Court has not taken into consideration the evidence so come on record. 8. The present in the considered opinion of this Court, however, is thus a case of violation of the provisions under Section 25-F of the Act, as admittedly neither any notice was served upon the petitioner nor he was paid any compensation before resorting to his retrenchment. The present even is a case of violation of Section 25-G, as Nihal Chand engaged on daily wage basis after the initial engagement of the petitioner was retained, whereas, the petitioner retrenched. The present even is a case of violation of Section 25-G, as Nihal Chand engaged on daily wage basis after the initial engagement of the petitioner was retained, whereas, the petitioner retrenched. The disengagement of the petitioner without resorting to the provisions contained under Sections 25-F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act is void abinitio and illegal. Consequently, the impugned award is neither legally nor factually sustainable and the same as such deserves to be quashed and set aside, with a direction to the respondent-Board to reinstate the petitioner. 9. Consequential benefits such as back wages and continuity and seniority has to be considered in the light of the given facts and circumstances of the case. It is well settled that back wages can only be granted in those cases where evidence is available on record that workman was not gainfully employed during the period he remained out of job. In the case in hand, only statement of the petitioner recorded on 3rd January, 2008 reveals that he was doing no work. He has not been cross-examined nor any evidence produced by the respondent suggesting that the petitioner during the period of his retrenchment remained gainfully employed. Irrespective of this, the present is not a case where the petitioner is entitled to full back wages. He, however, is entitled to his reinstatement in the facts and circumstances of the case. He is entitled to be re-engaged forthwith with continuity and seniority. In view of the petitioner has raised the demand notice in February, 2004, he is held entitled to back wages to the extent of 25% from st March, 2004 till his re-engagement, however, without any interest. 10. For all the reasons hereinabove, this writ petition succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the respondent-Board to re-engage the petitioner forth-with, with continuity and seniority and payment of back wages to the extent of 25% from 1st March, 2004 till his re-engagement within three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent, failing which together with interest @ 9% per annum; which shall be recoverable from the officer/official(s), held responsible for the delay. 11. With the above observations, this writ petition stand disposed of finally, so also the pending application(s), if any.