JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court, Bhavnagar, being Reference (LCB) No. 341/1995 by which the learned Labour Court has directed the petitioner to reinstate respondent No. 1-workman without backwages but with continuity of service. It is not dispute and even according to the petitioner the petitioner worked during the period between 10/07/1981 to 30/06/1983 however for different days. The petitioner worked for 27 days as daily wager in the year 1981; he worked for 206 days in the year 1982; and for 109 days in the year 1983. His services came to be terminated on and from 30/06/1983. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the learned Labour Court, Bhavnagar, which was numbered as Reference (LCB) No. 341/1995. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Labour Court has held that there is breach of Section 25G and Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act and Rule 82 of the Gujarat Rules and consequently directed the petitioner to reinstate respondent No. 1 with continuity of service, however without backwages. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court, the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Shri Gade, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that as in the present case respondent No. 1-workman has failed to establish and prove that he has worked for not less than 240 days in the last preceding year and there is no finding recorded by the learned Labour Court that there is breach of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and considering the fact that respondent No. 1 has worked as daily wager for 27 days in the year 1981; 206 days in the year 1982; and 109 days in the year 1983, the learned Labour Court has materially erred in directing the petitioner to reinstate respondent No. 1 and that to with continuity of service. It is submitted that in any case considering the fact that there was a delay of 12 years in raising the industrial dispute, the learned Labour Court has erred in granting continuity of service from the date of his alleged termination i.e. June, 1983. It is submitted that in any case considering the fact that there was a delay of 12 years in raising the industrial dispute, the learned Labour Court has erred in granting continuity of service from the date of his alleged termination i.e. June, 1983. Making the above submissions, it is requested to allow the present petition. 3. Shri Mankad, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1-workman has vehemently opposed the present petition. He has relied upon the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 8990/2004 in the case of the very petitioner but with respect to another workman and has stated that in similar facts and circumstances when it was found that the industrial dispute was raised belatedly, the continuity was granted only from the date of service. 3.1. It is further submitted that in the present case on appreciation of evidence, there is a finding recorded by the learned Labour Court that there is breach of Section 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is submitted that for Section 25G and Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, it is not required that the workman must have worked for not less than 240 days in the preceding year. It is submitted that therefore the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court is not required to be set aside on the ground that respondent No. 1-workman has not proved that he has worked for not less than 240 days in the preceding year, however, he has submitted that he has no objection if the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court is modified to the extent of granting continuity of service from the date of service. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that before the learned Labour Court, respondent No. 1-workman specifically pleaded and alleged the violation of Section 25G and Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is a finding recorded by the learned Labour Court on appreciation of evidence that there is violation of Section 25G and Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is a finding recorded by the learned Labour Court on appreciation of evidence that there is violation of Section 25G and Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is also required to be noted that when there is violation of Section 25G and Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act may not be attracted despite the fact that respondent No. 1-workman has failed to establish and prove that he has worked for not less than 240 days in the preceding year. If it is found on appreciation of evidence that there is violation of Section 25G and Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, there can be reinstatement. 3.2. Under the circumstances, as such, and having found that termination was in violation of Section 25G and Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, it cannot be said that the learned Labour Court has committed any error in ordering reinstatement. However, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner is justified in making the grievance that as the industrial dispute was raised belatedly the learned Labour Court is not justified in granting continuity from the date of termination. In the identical facts and circumstances when it was found that the industrial dispute was raised belatedly the learned Single Judge in the case of the very petitioner but with respect to another employee has modified the award passed by the learned Labour Court granting continuity of service from the date of service, to the aforesaid extent the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court granting continuity of service from the date of termination is hereby modified and it is ordered that the continuity be granted from the date of Reference. To the aforesaid extent only the present petition is allowed. It goes without saying that as the learned Labour Court has ordered reinstatement without backwages. Naturally respondent No. 1 - workman shall not be entitled to any backwages even the learned Labour Court has also not awarded the same. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.