ORDER : Mr. Arun Bhansali, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the award dated 12/4/2017 passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur, whereby, the reference made by the appropriate Government has been answered in favour of the workman holding his oral termination as illegal, workman has been held entitled to outstanding wages and reinstatement subject to his age, continuity in service till reinstatement and 50% back wages from the date of Notification i.e. 6/7/2001. 2. The respondent workman raised a dispute before the conciliation officer and on conciliation proceedings having failed, the appropriate Government referred the matter to Labour Court, Jodhpur as to whether the workman's termination w.e.f. 11/7/1999 was justified; whether he was entitled to wages for the period of 06 months and 10 days @ Rs. 3000/- per month and to what relief and amount the workman was entitled. 3. It was inter alia contended by the workman by filing his claim that he worked with the petitioner employer from 1/1/1994 to 10/7/1999; he was paid wages till December, 1998 and from 1/1/1999 he was not paid any wages and when on 11/7/1999 he presented himself at the employer's institution, its proprietor Dinesh Chandra by oral order terminated his services, which was in violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act') and Rules framed there under. 4. The employer filed his reply denying the averments made in the claim. It was submitted that the employment started on 1/7/1998 and ended on 30/6/1999 during which period the employee gave intermittent services. The service was not continuous and employee was not paid salary @ Rs. 3000/- per month and was being paid Rs. 50/- per day. It was also claimed that since 30/6/1999 the employee remained absent without any notice, he was not denied work and that he has started his own work as a self employed person. It was submitted that the workman worked for 195 days and, therefore, was not entitled to any relief. 5. The case was decided ex-parte on 19/12/2002 and was again restored on 2/12/2004. Affidavits were filed by the workman, who was cross examined and on behalf of the employer, accountant filed his affidavit and was cross examined. It was submitted that the workman worked for 195 days and, therefore, was not entitled to any relief. 5. The case was decided ex-parte on 19/12/2002 and was again restored on 2/12/2004. Affidavits were filed by the workman, who was cross examined and on behalf of the employer, accountant filed his affidavit and was cross examined. After hearing the parties, the Labour Court came to the following conclusion: vr% nksuksa i{kksa dh lk{; ls ;g izekf.kr gS fd izkFkhZ us vizkFkhZ ds ;gka dqy 248 fnu dk;Z fd;k] ;g ckr vizkFkhZ us viuh cgl ds isjk la[;k 10 esa vafdr dh gSA vizkFkhZ bls ekuoh; Hkwy crk jgk gS ysfdu bl ekuoh; Hkwy ds laca/k esa dksbZ Hkwylq/kkj rRle; ugha dh xbZ vr% vc bl Lrj ij ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd dksbZ fyfidh; =qfV rRle; gqbZ gksA tgka izkFkhZ dk vizkFkhZ ds ;gka dys.Mj o"kZ esa 248 fnu dk;Z djuk izekf.kr gks ogka vizkFkhZ dks izkFkhZ&Jfed dks gVk;s tkus ls iwoZ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh /kkjk 25&,Q ds rgr uksfVl fn;k tkuk] NaVuh eqvkotk fn;k tkuk ,oa jkT; ljdkj dks lwpuk fn;k tkuk vko';d gS] vizkFkhZ laLFkku dh vksj ls izkFkhZ ds ekeysa es ,slk ugha fd;k x;k gSA vizkFkhZ dk ;g dguk fd izkFkhZ tkucw>dj ugha vk jgk gS ;g ckr rc rd Lohd`r ugha ekuh tk ldrh tc rd fd vizkFkhZ }kjk izkFkhZ dks mifLFkr gksus ds fy;s dksbZ uksfVl ugha fn;k tkrkA 6. The Labour Court also came to the conclusion that the termination was in violation of provisions of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act. 7. Qua the plea regarding workman having left the employment on account of his getting engaged in self employment, it was held that the employer failed to produce any evidence in support of the said plea and that the important witness Meetha Lal was not produced in the witness box and consequently passed the award as indicated hereinbefore. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court committed error in coming to the conclusion that the respondent workman had completed 240 days and that he had not voluntarily abandoned the services of petitioner organization. It was submitted that the workman was doing his own business in the name of 'Pushpa Restaurant', which prompted him to leave the service. It was submitted that the workman was doing his own business in the name of 'Pushpa Restaurant', which prompted him to leave the service. It was submitted that important material evidence available on record on this aspect has not been taken into consideration and despite laconic evidence on the part of the workman, a finding has been returned in his favour which on the face of it is perverse and, therefore, the award deserves to be quashed and set aside. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 10. As noticed hereinbefore, the Labour Court after hearing the parties and analyzing the oral and documentary evidence available on record came to a definite finding that the workman had completed 240 days entitling him to protection under the Act. It was also found as a fact that the workman had completed 240 days in the previous calendar year and that his services were terminated in violation of provisions of statutory provisions. 11. The said finding of the Labour Court being a finding of fact, and no perversity whatsoever could be indicated by the learned counsel for the petitioner insofar as the analysis of the evidence available on record by the Labour Court is concerned, no interference is called for in the said finding. 12. Further submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner pertaining to the defence raised regarding abandonment of service by the workman on account of his having started his own business (getting self employed), the burden lay on the petitioner employer to prove the said aspect, however, the evidence led was not sufficient to support the said contention and the Labour Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that merely because after illegal termination of service the workman was engaged in some vocation by itself cannot be a reason for reaching to a conclusion of voluntarily abandonment of the service. 13. In view thereof, the finding on the said aspect also does not call for any interference. 14. The Labour Court has ordered for reinstatement and award of 50% back wages, which cannot be said to be unjustified looking to the nature of the case so as to require interference on the said aspect. 15. 13. In view thereof, the finding on the said aspect also does not call for any interference. 14. The Labour Court has ordered for reinstatement and award of 50% back wages, which cannot be said to be unjustified looking to the nature of the case so as to require interference on the said aspect. 15. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.