JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner Public Health and Engineering Department of the Government of Rajasthan has approached this Court for assailing the legality and validity of the judgment cum award dated 4.8.2014 passed by the Labour and Industrial Tribunal, Bikaner in Labour Dispute Case No. 100/2009. 2. Facts relevant and essential for the sake of disposal of the instant writ petition are noted herein below:- 3. The respondent workman, Sh. Shyam Lal claiming to have been engaged in the Regional Laboratory, Bikaner of the Public Health and Engineering Department, raised an industrial dispute against his alleged illegal retrenchment from service vide the order dated 1.5.2001. The workman alleged that he had served the respondent department on daily wage basis for a continuous period of more than four years. However, he was retrenched from service on 1.5.2001 without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act. He approached the Government for raising an industrial dispute. Conciliation was directed for the purpose of attempting a settlement. However, conciliation proceedings failed where after, the industrial dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Bikaner for adjudication. 4. The Tribunal framed an issue as to whether the retrenchment of the respondent workman from services of the petitioner department on 1.5.2001 was legal or not. Evidence was led by the contesting parties before the Tribunal. The workman set up a case that he had been employed as a Chowkidar at PHED Regional Laboratory, Bikaner on 7.2.1997 on daily wage basis. His wages were enhanced from time to time. Though given the designation of a part time employee, he was made to work for more than 8 hours daily. He wrote to the authorities for regurizing him in service whereupon, his daily waged services were terminated by an oral direction on 1.5.2001. He specifically pleaded that he had worked with the petitioner No. 2 for continuous period extending 240 days for each of the previous four years and that the respondents did not follow the mandatory procedure provided under Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act before terminating him. The respondents took a stance in their reply that the respondent workman had been engaged as a part time watchman on daily wage basis. He was not having the requisite qualification for being appointed as a Class-IV employee. The respondents took a stance in their reply that the respondent workman had been engaged as a part time watchman on daily wage basis. He was not having the requisite qualification for being appointed as a Class-IV employee. The workman abandoned duty on 1.5.2001 without ever applying for regular selection on a Class-IV post and thus it was not a case of illegal retrenchment. 5. The Tribunal, after considering the documentary and oral evidence led by the parties, came to the conclusion that the claimant workman had served as a daily wager in the Regional Laboratory, PHED for a period in excess of 4 years. His engagement was for a period in excess of 240 days for the year preceding 1.5.2001. The employer department, admittedly did not follow the mandatory requirements of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and retrenched the respondent workman from service. Thereupon, the impugned award was passed directing the reinstatement of the respondent workman without back-wages Cost of Rs.5000/- was also awarded to the workman. The said award is under challenge in this writ petition. 6. Shri N.K. Mehta, AGC representing the petitioner department, during course of his arguments could not point out any significant shortcoming or flaw in the findings recorded by the Tribunal. His only endeavour was to challenge the impugned award on the ground that the workman raised the industrial dispute after significant delay of almost 5 years and thus, the Tribunal should not have ordered his reinstatement in service. However, he could not point out from the pleadings or evidence that any such specific objection of delay was taken by the Department before the Tribunal. 7. Shri Parvej Moyal, learned counsel for the respondent workman opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and has drawn my attention towards the representation submitted by the workman to the authorities for taking him back on duty and buttressed that as the workman was continuously pursuing his cause by submitting representations to the authorities, his claim cannot be thrown out on the ground of the so-called delay in raising the industrial dispute. In support of this contention and in order to claim that the impugned award is unimpeachable, he relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Raghubir Singh v. Haryana Roadways, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 301 and urged that the writ petition should be dismissed while affirming the award dated 4.8.2014. 8. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. In view of the evidence led before the Tribunal it is amply clear that the respondent workman had served the petitioner department on daily wage basis for a period well in excess of four years before he was unceremoniously chucked off from services by an oral order dated 1.5.2001. The fact that he had continuously performed duty for 240 days in the preceding year is unquestionable. Unimpeachable evidence was led before the Tribunal in support of this plea of the workman. It is admitted that before retrenching the respondent from services, the mandatory requirements of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act were not followed by the employer. Consequently, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the findings recorded to this effect by the Tribunal are based on unassailable evidence. As regards the delusion of delay, raised by the petitioners, apart from the fact that the said objection has no legs to stand in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghubir Singh (supra), it is also clear from the record that the workman was regularly pursuing his cause before the authorities to i retain/reinstate him in service by submitting numerous representations. When he failed to achieve any success, immediately, the industrial dispute was raised. Therefore, ex-facie, the industrial dispute cannot be held as having been raised after any significant delay. 10. Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Raghubir Singh (supra) has clearly held that once, the Court comes to a conclusion that the workman is retrenched from service after having worked for 240 days in the preceding year without following the procedure prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, then the only necessary consequence of such a finding is to direct reinstatement. In the case at hand, there being no significant delay in raising of the industrial dispute and as the respondent workman served the department for a significantly long period of more than four years, I am of the firm opinion that the direction of reinstatement without back-wages granted by the Tribunal to the workman is the only justifiable relief. 11. The impugned award ex-facie does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or perversity so as to call for any interference in the exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. 12. Consequently, the writ petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. Award sustained-Write petition dismissed.