JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner State aggrieved against the award dated 11.2.2004 passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur whereby, the Labour Court has come to a conclusion that the termination of the respondent's services by order dated 8.12.1994 was not justified and directed for reinstatement with 30% back wages from the date of reference i.e. 30.10.2000. 2. The respondent, was working on the post of Beldar with the petitioner State, when his services were terminated by order dated 8.12.1994 with effect from 15.11.1992 on account of his alleged continued unexplained absence from service. The respondent raised dispute which was referred by order dated 30.10.2000 by the appropriate Government. 3. It was inter alia indicated that the respondent was arrested under the provisions of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 ('TADA') on 15.11.1992 and remained under custody till he was acquitted on 27.10.1995 by the TADA Court and as the termination of the services of the respondent was without any notice and/or enquiry, the termination was bad. 4. The claim made by the respondent before the Labour Court was resisted by the petitioner State. 5. After evidence was led by both the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the order passed on 8.12.1994 terminating the services with retrospective effect was illegal, as no enquiry was held by the petitioner before termination of the services, on that count also, the order impugned was bad. The plea raised by the petitioner State regarding voluntary abandonment of service was not accepted and consequently, the award as indicated hereinbefore was passed. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court was not justified in passing the award impugned in as much as admittedly, the respondent was in detention for the period 15.11.1992 till 27.10.1995 and, therefore, the action of the petitioner in terminating his services on account of continued absence with effect from 15.11.1992 was justified. It was submitted that the notices were issued and published in newspapers and when no response was received from the respondent, the State was left with no other alternative but to pass the order impugned terminating the services of the respondent. It was submitted that the notices were issued and published in newspapers and when no response was received from the respondent, the State was left with no other alternative but to pass the order impugned terminating the services of the respondent. Submissions were also made that the award passed by the Labour Court ordering for treating the services as continuous cannot be sustained for the reason that the 'continuous service' as defined under the Rajasthan Work Charge Employees Service Rules is not satisfied and that as the reference was made belatedly, the direction for granting reinstatement was not justified. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent workman supported the award impugned. It was submitted that admittedly the workman was under detention and was ultimately acquitted by the TADA Court and, therefore, there was no occasion for him to be aware of any notice issued by the State and that there was justifiable reason for his non-appearance before the petitioner for the said period and, therefore, the award impugned passed by the Labour Court does not call for any interference. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. As noticed hereinbefore, it is not in dispute that the respondent was under detention for the period 15.11.1992 to 27.10.1995, when he was acquitted. During the said period, the notices though might have been issued by the petitioner State, it cannot be assumed looking to the nature of detention of the respondent that he had any inkling of issuance of such notices and, therefore, his non-appearance pursuant to the notice cannot be said to be unjustified. So far as the action of the petitioner in passing the order dated 8.12.1994 putting an end to the services of the respondent with effect from 15.11.1992 is concerned, the said action was taken based on the absence of the respondent and the fact that no response was given to the show cause notices issued/published. As the absence as well as non-response to the notice was justified on account of detention of the respondent, passing of the order terminating the services without any further investigation/inquiry and/or finding out the cause by the petitioner cannot be justified. The order dated 8.12.1994 was rightly held to be vitiated by the Labour Court, which award does not call for any interference. 10. The order dated 8.12.1994 was rightly held to be vitiated by the Labour Court, which award does not call for any interference. 10. So far as the grant of relief of continuation of service pursuant to setting aside of the order of termination as well as grant of 30% back wages for the said period is concerned, the plea raised by the counsel for the petitioner based on definition of continuous service is baseless. The definition of continuous service reads as under :- "(l) "Continuous Service" means uninterrupted service and includes service which may be interrupted merely on account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal strike or a lock-out or cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the employee." 11. A bare look at the said definition would reveal that cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the employee would fall within the period of continuous service and as admittedly, the respondent was under detention and was ultimately acquitted, it cannot be said that cessation of work was due to the fault on the part of the respondent. 12. So far as the issue of delay in raising the dispute is concerned, in view of the fact that the Labour Court, has awarded back wages from the date of reference and that also at 30%, the same takes care of the said aspect as well. 13. Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, the same is, therefore, dismissed. The petitioner is granted two months' time to comply with the award passed by the Labour Court inasmuch as during pendency of the present writ petition, the respondent has already attained the age of superannuation.