JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. 1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the award dated 21.11.2002 passed by the learned Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar whereby the workman Jhandu Ram was directed to be reinstated in service on the basis of the earlier agreement entered into between the parties before the conciliation officer whereby the said workman was denied earlier period of his service and was also not given back-wages or benefits in the nature thereof. 2. The petitioner has assailed the award dated 21.11.2002 on the ground that the period of 240 days could not be said to be counted from the date of retrenchment i.e. from 31.07.1995 and the learned Labour Court has erred in counting the period from 1992 to 31.07.1995 to count the 240 days. It is stated that the petitioner was taken on duty from time to time up to February 1995 and the last period for which he worked was from September 1994 to February 1995 and thus 240 days immediately preceding the so called retrenchment dated 31.07.1995 cannot be said to be completed and the workman has been wrongfully directed to be reinstated. 3. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent-workman has pointed out that the workman was admittedly appointed in February 1992 but has been wrongfully shown to have been on artificial breaks. Not only this, the complete muster roll was not placed before the learned Labour Court and, therefore, the Labour Court has rightly drawn an adverse inference as against the Government. He has also taken this Court to the award impugned where the learned Judge has also noted the compromise which had been put forward by the State Government itself to the concerned workman during the conciliation proceedings and the State Government had shown its willingness to reinstate him provided he does not claim earlier period of service. Taking the said offer/compromise, the learned Labour Court has only reinstated the petitioner in service but has not given him benefit of back-wages or continuity of service. 4. He further submits that there is no perversity in the award passed by the learned Labour Court nor it can be said that the award has been passed illegality or without jurisdiction. Taking the said offer/compromise, the learned Labour Court has only reinstated the petitioner in service but has not given him benefit of back-wages or continuity of service. 4. He further submits that there is no perversity in the award passed by the learned Labour Court nor it can be said that the award has been passed illegality or without jurisdiction. He has prayed that the writ petition be dismissed as the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited while examining the award passed by the learned Labour Court. 5. I have heard the submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case. 6. It is seen that while passing the award dated 21.11.2002, the reference was made on 06.05.2002 to the effect whether the termination of service of the concerned workman on 31.07.1995 was legal and correct and whether he had completed 240 days prior to 31.07.1995 and the relief which should be given to him. 7. The Labour Court has noted that the appointment of the petitioner was initially on 02.02.1992 as a casual labour and his name was also shown in the muster roll. 8. In reply, the petitioner stated that although he was initially appointed in the Year 1992 and he continued from February 1992 to April 1992 and thereafter from April, 1993 to July 1993 and from September 1994 to February 1995. It is further submitted that the payments were made through hand receipts and after February 1995 he has not been engaged on duties. It is stated that in the previous calender year, the petitioner workman cannot be said to have completed 240 days and, therefore, the requirement of Section 25 F, 25 G and 25 H would not apply under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 1947') and therefore, there is no question of reinstatement. 9. The Labour Judge has found that while muster rolls for the said period as stated herein above were placed and hand receipts were also placed by the petitioner-employer, for the period shown herein above, neither any hand receipts were submitted to show that the workman was not employed nor any muster roll was placed on record for the period thereafter, on the said basis, the learned Labour Court has drawn an adverse inference as against the petitioner. The learned Judge has also examined in the aforesaid background the compromise submitted by the petitioner before the conciliation officer which clearly demonstrates that the petitioners were having full knowledge that the respondent workman was in their services and they were ready to reinstate him provided he forgoes his earlier period of service. Terms and conditions of the compromise/proposal for reinstatement have been enumerated in para 12 of the award. 10. In view of the same, the learned Labour Court has proceeded to accept the said compromise in terms of Section 18 of the Act of 1947 and has proceeded to pass the award. 11. From the perusal of the award and the contentions as raised herein as well as the evidence which have come on record, it is apparent that the workman was entitled to reinstatement and there is no illegality committed by the learned Labour Court while passing the award dated 21.11.2002. 12. Another fact which has also come on record is with regard to workman-respondent having been again reinstated by the petitioners-employer in 2007 vide order dated 08.06.2007. 13. In view of the above, it is apparent that the petitioners have been practicing a theory of hire and fire which cannot be allowed to be sustained. 14. In view thereof, the writ petition is dismissed and the award dated 22.11.2002 passed by the learned Labour Court, Sriganganar in Labour Misc. Case No. 5/2002 is upheld and no interference is called for. Petition dismissed.