JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner-State challenges the award passed by the Judge, Labour Court-I, Jaipur dated 9th January, 2012, whereby claim raised by the workman-respondent No. 1 was allowed and it was directed that the workman shall be reinstated with continuity of service and the back wages upto 20% was allowed in his favour and regular salary from the date of passing of award. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred as "workman") was appointed on daily wages basis for the purpose of sprinkling of anti-malaria medicines in terms of the directions issued by the Medical & Health Department and in fact, the workman shall be treated as an employee of the Medical & Health Department and the Nagar Nigam was only performing the duties on behalf of the Medical & Health Department. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the workman has submitted that the workman was appointed in the year 1992 and persons who were appointed in the year 1994 have been continued without drawing inter-se seniority list and the workman was admittedly being paid daily wages by the Nagar Nigam itself. 4. Learned counsel further submits that one Mohd. Yusuf, who was appointed in the year 1994, has been later-on regularized and placed under the regular pay scale. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-State has refuted the matter. So far as Mohd. Yusuf is concerned, he applied under the advertisement and was thereafter selected and therefore, has been given appointment under the same. 6. An additional affidavit in this regard has been filed by the Deputy Commissioner stating that in the year 2003, the Corporation had published an advertisement for Maleria Eradication Program and Mohd. Yusuf had earlier worked for the year 1994-95 and similarly situated other persons approached the High Court for consideration of appointment of Safai Karamchari and some of the labourers approached the Labour Court. The workman individually applied under the advertised post and therefore his case could not be equated with Mohd. Yusuf and the learned Labour Court has fallen in error. 7. Reply has also been filed to the additional affidavit by the counsel for the workman in which he has stated that the Labour Court has reached to the conclusion that workman had worked for a longer period i.e. 286 days in comparison to Mohd. Yusuf, who has worked for 254 days. 7. Reply has also been filed to the additional affidavit by the counsel for the workman in which he has stated that the Labour Court has reached to the conclusion that workman had worked for a longer period i.e. 286 days in comparison to Mohd. Yusuf, who has worked for 254 days. As per Rules 77 and 78 of the Rules of 1957, the petitioner ought to have drawn a seniority list and called persons for re-employment in terms of the Section 25H of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. 8. I have considered the submissions. 9. Section 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reads as under:- "25H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen.- Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer proposes to take into his employ any persons, he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity 2 to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for re-employment and such retrenched workman] who offer themselves for re-employment shall have preference over other persons." Thus, offer should have been made to the workman for the re-employment on the ground that petitioner had issued an advertisement wherein Mohd. Yusuf was selected, would not defeat the right of the workman, who admittedly was appointed in 1992 and had been working for more period than that of Mohd. Yusuf. Although, in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not delve into this aspect. Suffice it to state that the Labour Court has examined this aspect in detail on factual basis and findings arrived at of violation of principle of last come first go cannot be doubted and treated as perverse. 10. In view thereof, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The award passed by the Labour Court is upheld. The petitioner shall now take steps as directed by the Labour Court expeditiously. Interim order passed by this Court shall also stand vacated. All pending applications also stand disposed of.