JUDGMENT 1. - This petition for writ is preferred to challenge validity, correctness and propriety of award dated 27.10.2010 passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur in Labour Case No.30/2006 (Shankar Lal v. Medical Officer cum Incharge Government Health Centre, Rani, District Pali). The appropriate Government by a notification dated 3.3.2005 referred an industrial dispute to Labour Court, Jodhpur in the terms that "Whether the applicant-workman Shankar Lal S/o Shri Raja Ram, resident of Nai Abadi, Bhadarva Ka Jav, Khudala Falna was rightly terminated from service by his employer, Medical Officer cum Incharge Government Health Centre, Rani, District Pali on 16.11.1993? If yes, then for what relief and amount the workman is entitled for ?". 2. After registration of dispute, a notice was issued to the respondent workman as well as the petitioner and the respondent workman filed a statement of claim. As per the respondent workman, he remained in employment of his employer from 13.6.1990 to 15.11.1993, but on 16.11.1993 he was terminated from service and the termination so made is nothing but retrenchment as defined under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 1947'). The retrenchment as per the workman was made without adhering to the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. 3. A return to the statement of claim was filed on behalf of the employer with assertion that appointment was given to the respondent-workman on part-time basis and he never remained in continuous employment. An objection was also raised by the employer about the delay caused in raising the dispute, however, the petitioner-employer did not adduce any evidence to substantiate the averments contained in written statement. 4. The Labour Court after examining the entire evidence available arrived at the conclusion that the respondent-workman was in continuous employment of the employer as defined under Section 25-B of the Act of 1947 and he was retrenched from service on 16.11.1993 without observing the mandatory condition precedents to do so. 5. While dealing with the objection regarding delay in raising the industrial dispute, the Labour Court arrived at the conclusion that the respondent-workman was making all his best efforts to get the dispute resolved bilaterally as his employer was regularly giving assurance for his re-employment. 6. 5. While dealing with the objection regarding delay in raising the industrial dispute, the Labour Court arrived at the conclusion that the respondent-workman was making all his best efforts to get the dispute resolved bilaterally as his employer was regularly giving assurance for his re-employment. 6. The Labour Court in view of the findings above, answered the reference by declaring the retrenchment illegal and by directing the employer to re-instate the workman in service with 25% backwages. A specific direction was also given to treat the respondent-workman in continuous service from the date of his retrenchment i.e. 16.11.1993. 7. In this petition for writ, while submitting the award aforesaid, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner employer is that the respondent-workman was working on part time capacity and his service is having certain breakages and, as such, he does not complete continuous service as required under Section 25-B of the Act of 1947. 8. I do not find any merit in the argument advanced. 9. The respondent-workman in quite definite terms stated that he remained in service of the petitioner-employer from 13.6.1990 to 15.11.1993. The statement so given was made on oath whereas no evidence was adduced by the employer. In such circumstance the version placed on record on oath by the workman deserves to be accepted. The other argument advanced by the learned counsel is that the delay caused in the instant matter is huge and that could not have been condoned to entertain the dispute on merits. This issue as a matter of fact is considered by the Labour Court in detail in para-11 of the award. The findings given by the Labour Court on this issue are nothing but findings of fact and, thus, are not required to be interfered in writ jurisdiction of this Court, however, so far as the relief part is concerned to the extent of grant of 25% of the backwages, I am of the opinion that the same could not have been allowed for the period the respondent-workman did not raise the dispute, may that be, due to assurance given by the employer. 10. The Labour Court could have allowed backwages to the respondent workman only from the date the reference was made by the appropriate Government i.e. 3.3.2005. 11. 10. The Labour Court could have allowed backwages to the respondent workman only from the date the reference was made by the appropriate Government i.e. 3.3.2005. 11. Accordingly, this petition for writ is disposed of by affirming the award passed by the Labour Court with the modification that the respondent-workman shall not be entitled for 25% of the total backwages from 16.11.1993 to the date of reinstatement but shall be entitled for 50% of the wages from the date of reference i.e. 3.3.2005 to the date of award. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner-employer is required to make payment of full wages to the workman. Necessary compliance of the directions given under the award as modified above is required to be made by the employer on or before 31.3.2013.Petition Partly Allowed. *******