JUDGMENT : Jayant M. Patel, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 17-2-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Spl. C.A. No. 7423 of 2006, whereby the learned Single Judge has set aside the award passed by the Labour Court so far as it related to back wages, but did not interfere with the award for reinstatement with the further direction that the award of the Labour Court was to be implemented within 8 weeks from the date of the order of the learned Single Judge. The short facts of the case appears to be that the respondent was working as daily-rated employee on temporary and ad hoc basis. As per the appellants, on account of non-availability of work, his services came to be terminated or he was not continued in service from 30-10-1984. The dispute was raised under Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by the respondent-workman and the said dispute came to be referred to the Labour Court for adjudication being Reference (L.C.K.) No. 277/91. The Labour Court ultimately passed the award dated 7-6-2001, whereby the workman was directed to be reinstated in service with 40% back wages from 16-6-1994. The said award was challenged by the appellant before this Court in the petition being Spl. C.A. No. 7423 of 2001. The learned Single Judge in the said petition passed the impugned judgment and order. Under the circumstances, the present appeal before the Division Bench of this Court. 2. We have heard Mr. Dipen Sankhesara for Mr. Vyas for the appellants and Mr. Rathod for the respondent workmen. At the outset, the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides declared before the Court that pending the present appeal, on account of interim order dated 26-7-2006 passed by this Court in the present appeal, the respondent workman was reinstated in service. But thereafter, on account of the sickness, the respondent workman did not continue the service and again he was terminated. 3. Mr. Rathod submitted that he had also communicated to the workman by Regd. A.D. post, but respondent workman has not responded. He tendered the communication dated 15-3-2011 with the note filed by him to the Registrar General for withdrawal of his appearance. 4. 3. Mr. Rathod submitted that he had also communicated to the workman by Regd. A.D. post, but respondent workman has not responded. He tendered the communication dated 15-3-2011 with the note filed by him to the Registrar General for withdrawal of his appearance. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the present appeal is limited to the extent of reinstatement ordered by the Labour Court and not interfered by the learned Single Judge. It was submitted that considering the facts and circumstances, the Labour Court ought not to have passed the order for reinstatement or in any case, the learned Single Judge ought not to have maintained the said part of the award of the Labour Court. 5. The examination of the said contention shows that the Labour Court in the impugned award has found on facts that the respondent-workman had worked as Overseer from 1-10-1982 to 31-10-1984 on temporary basis. The said aspect was proved by the documentary evidence of the certificate issued by the concerned authority. Therefore, the aspect of continuous work for preceding 2 years was proved. No evidence was produced to show that any retrenchment compensation was paid under Sec. 25F of the Act. In view of the aforesaid finding of fact, the reinstatement was granted by the Labour Court. The learned Single Judge has not interfered with the finding of fact so far as reinstatement is concerned. The learned Single Judge has found that he was in agreement with the reasoning recorded and finding arrived at by the Labour Court for entitlement of the workman for reinstatement. 6. Under these circumstances, when there is finding of fact for completion of 240 days in the preceding year and no retrenchment compensation was paid to the workman, the award of the Labour Court could not be said to be illegal so far as reinstatement is concerned nor can it be said that the learned Single Judge has committed error in not interfering with the said part of the award of the Labour Court. The another relevant aspect is that the learned Single Judge had directed the award to be implemented within a period of eight weeks. Therefore, the additional opportunity was also given to the appellants to comply with the award so far as reinstatement is concerned. Under these circumstances, we find that the appeal is meritless. Hence, deserves to be dismissed. Therefore, dismissed. Therefore, the additional opportunity was also given to the appellants to comply with the award so far as reinstatement is concerned. Under these circumstances, we find that the appeal is meritless. Hence, deserves to be dismissed. Therefore, dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs.