Judgment Paresh Upadhyay, J.—Heard Ms. Khyati Hathi, learned advocate for the petitioner employer and Mr. T.R. Mishra, learned advocate for the respondent workman. 2. Challenge in this petition is made to the order of the Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) No. 233 of 1999 dated 14.12.2010 whereby the respondent herein is ordered to be reinstated in service, with continuity of service, without back-wages. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has contended that since there was reduction of work, the service of the respondent was not required and therefore no illegality could have been attributed to the action of the petitioner Management. It is further contended that the retrenchment compensation was attempted to be paid, which at the most was belated, and thus, there was substantial compliance with the provisions of law, and if at all any breach is found, the same is technical in nature. 4. Learned advocate for the respondent workman, on the other hand, has stated that, it is a matter of record that the respondent, who was working as Peon/Watchman, was in the employment of the petitioner Corporation, from 11.06.1986 to 18.11.1998. It is further stated that, at the time of retrenchment of the respondent, the persons junior to him, were continued in service and further that, even the compensation was not paid in accordance with law. It is contended that considering the totality of the facts, the Labour Court has found termination of the respondent to be illegal, and this Court may not interfere with the same. 5. It is reported that at the time of admission of this petition, stay against reinstatement was refused and that is how the respondent is already in service, pursuant to the impugned award of the Labour Court. Interim relief at the relevant time was granted, only qua continuity of service. 6. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having gone through the material on record, more particularly, the reasoning recorded by the Labour Court, I do not see any infirmity, either in the reasoning or in the final order which may call for any interference by this Court. 6. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having gone through the material on record, more particularly, the reasoning recorded by the Labour Court, I do not see any infirmity, either in the reasoning or in the final order which may call for any interference by this Court. It further needs to be recorded that, the Labour Court, after taking into consideration the evidence led before it, came to the specific finding of the fact that, at the time of retrenchment of the respondent workman, no compensation, in accordance with law was paid to him, and thus it was illegal. The Labour Court has further found that, the argument of the Management that since there was reduction of work, retrenchment was necessitated, was also not factually correct, since the Management did not satisfy the test of, last come first go. On that count also, the Labour Court has found the action of the Management to be illegal. The petitioner Management has not satisfactorily demonstrated before this Court, that these findings are perverse in any manner. Under these circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the said findings. The petition, therefore, needs to be dismissed. 7. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is dismissed. Interim relief qua continuity of services, which was granted by this Court at the time of admission of the petition, stands vacated. The impugned award of the Labour Court, shall now be given effect to within a period of three months from today. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.