ORDER : Ajay Rastogi, J. The instant special appeal is directed against order of the ld. Single Judge dated 30.4.2015. However, office has pointed out delay of 98 days in filing present appeal, in support thereof separate application has been filed seeking condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act. 2. We have heard counsel for the parties, the delay has been satisfactorily explained and deserves to be condonend. 3. Accordingly, the application seeking condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act stands allowed and the delay is condoned. 4. The poor respondent/workman indisputably as per the material which came on record and noticed by the learned Single Judge also in para No. 15 of the impugned judgment joined service as Beldar and worked on daily wages basis from 1.9.1987 and his services were terminated on 30.9.1991. 5. In the similar facts and circumstances, one another workman Anil Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Hari Shankar, who too joined as Beldar and served on daily wages basis from 1.6.1989 and his services were terminated on 31.1.1994. 6. Reference was made by the Government in both the two separate disputes raised by the workmen i.e. Anil Kumar Sharma S/o Shyam Sunder Sharma, the present respondent/ workman and Anil Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Hari Shankar and on adjudication of the dispute the ld. Labour Court in both the two separate reference, answered in affirmative terms holding that each of them had served for 240 days in preceding 12 months and in both the separate dispute there was a violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 7. It will be relevant to note that in terms of the award passed in the case of Anil Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Hari Shankar dated 22.9.2008 indisputably he was reinstated in service and no further writ petition was filed by the State Government, but in the case of the present respondent/workman the award of the ld. 7. It will be relevant to note that in terms of the award passed in the case of Anil Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Hari Shankar dated 22.9.2008 indisputably he was reinstated in service and no further writ petition was filed by the State Government, but in the case of the present respondent/workman the award of the ld. Labour Court dated 10.4.2008 came to be challenged at the instance of the State of Rajasthan in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 781/2009 and the specific question put by the learned Single Judge to the counsel was as to why two different standards have been adopted by the Government in case of two workmen namely; Anil Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Shyam Sunder Sharma and Anil Kumar Sharma S/o Hari Shankar and there appears no justification coming forward in this regard from the counsel, although the State Government's stand was that the appellant had served for 240 days in the preceding 12 months as such there was no infraction of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, which normally is the stand of the Government whenever the writ petitions are filed assailing the award of ld. Labour Court or ld. Tribunal, but neither any documentary evidence to justify the stand was adduced before the ld. Labour Court nor any tangible evidence is led before this Court in rebuttal/counter holding that there was no violation of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. 8. In totality of the matter, the learned Single Judge arrived to the conclusion that the distinct feature which has been pointed out by the State counsel in reference to the two separate awards is lame excuse and finally arrived to the conclusion that there was no perversity in the finding recorded in the impugned award passed by the ld. Labour Court and does call for interference under the writ jurisdiction available u/Art. 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India and accordingly dismissed the writ petition under the order impugned dated 30.4.2015. 9. It was further brought on record that after dismissal of the writ petition the respondent/workman has been reinstated in service in terms of the award vide order dated 27.9.2016 and has been thereafter made semi-permanent and permanent and at present is working in the regular pay scale after being made permanent under Rule, 1964. 10. 9. It was further brought on record that after dismissal of the writ petition the respondent/workman has been reinstated in service in terms of the award vide order dated 27.9.2016 and has been thereafter made semi-permanent and permanent and at present is working in the regular pay scale after being made permanent under Rule, 1964. 10. After we have heard counsel for the parties, we find no apparent error in the order impugned passed by the ld. Single Judge, which may call for our interference. 11. Consequently, the appeal is wholly devoid of merit and accordingly stands dismissed.