JUDGMENT : Paresh Upadhyay, J. Rule. Mr. Vasavda, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no.1 workman and Mr. Calla, learned advocate waives on behalf of respondent no.2. 2. Heard Ms. Megha Chitaliya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for petitioner authorities and Mr. D.S.Vasavda learned advocate for the contesting respondent workman. 3. Challenge in this petition is made to the award of the Labour Court, Bharuch in Reference (LCB) No.308 of 2003, dated 10.09.2012, whereby the action of the petitioner authorities of terminating the service of the respondent is held to be illegal and the respondent is ordered to be reinstated in service with continuity of service, with 20% back-wages. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Chitaliya for the petitioner Authorities contended that the respondent had not completed 240 days and therefore reinstatement ought not to have been ordered. It is also pointed out that the petitioner organisation is boys' hostel at Rajpipla, District : Narmada and the respondent was not continued in employment of the hostel as an Assistant Cook, when there was vacation. It is also contended that in view of the view expressed by Honourable the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation v. Gitam Singh, rendered in Civil Appeal No.8415 of 2009 dated 31.01.2013, [2013 (0) GLHEL - SC - 52590], compensation could have been awarded in favor of respondent workman and to that extent also the Labour Court has erred in moulding the relief. 5. On the other hand, Mr. D.S. Vasavda, learned advocate for the respondent workman has drawn the attention of the Court to the modus of the petitioner Authorities to discontinue the employment in vacation and that itself was illegal and even if that question is not gone into, then also, before Conciliation Officer, it was agreed by the Authorities of the petitioner Hostel that soon after the vacation is over, the respondent workman shall be called for duty, and the said fact is reflected in the impugned award itself. It is indicated that even after the vacation was over, the respondent was not called for and under these circumstances, ultimately, the further proceedings were required to be initiated. It has also come on record that, even other persons were engaged subsequent to discontinuance of services of the respondent workman. There is no denial to this aspect. It is indicated that even after the vacation was over, the respondent was not called for and under these circumstances, ultimately, the further proceedings were required to be initiated. It has also come on record that, even other persons were engaged subsequent to discontinuance of services of the respondent workman. There is no denial to this aspect. The Labour Court had also asked the Authorities of the petitioner Hostel to produce the record to deal with the contention that the respondent workman had not completed 240 days, however, inspite of that direction, the same was not produced. 6. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, this Court finds that the petitioner Authorities used to discontinue the employment in vacation only to re-employ after reopening and that itself was an illegality, but even if that is not gone into, the Authorities can not be permitted to take advantage of it. Further, it is also on record that before Conciliation Officer also, it was agreed by the petitioner Authorities that soon after the vacation is over, the respondent workman shall be called for duty. The said assurance was not kept and he was not permitted. Under these circumstances, Reference was made and Labour Court, after considering the material on record, found that the termination was illegal. Labour Court had also asked the petitioner Authorities to produce record before it, which it had not. Under these circumstances, considering the totality, when the Labour Court has come to the specific conclusion that the respondent workman had completed 240 days, merely on the oral say of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, this Court can not interfere in the said finding recorded by the Labour Court. Having gone through the material on record and more particularly reasoning recorded by the Labour Court, I do not see any infirmity, either in the reasoning or in the final order passed by the Labour Court, with regard to illegal discontinuance of service of the respondent workman. Under these circumstances, no interference is called for, so far the question of reinstatement is concerned. Under these circumstances, no interference is called for, so far the question of reinstatement is concerned. The argument of learned Assistant Government Pleader to award compensation in the facts of this case is also not well founded since the same was not contended before the Labour Court nor I am inclined to do so, since it will give premium to the illegality which the petitioner Authorities have already committed and which is corrected by the Labour Court. 7. So far back-wages is concerned, the Labour Court has awarded 20% back-wages. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, ends of justice would meet if that part of the award is interfered with. This petition is partly allowed, by modifying impugned award of the Labour Court, only to the extent that respondent workman shall not be entitled to any back-wages. 8. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is partly allowed. The impugned award of the Labour Court stands confirmed qua reinstatement. The same is modified to the extent that the respondent shall not be entitled to back wages. It is clarified that so far the reinstatement with continuity of service is concerned, the same is not interfered with and it is directed that the reinstatement shall be effected within a period from two months from today. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.