ORDER : Biren Vaishnav, J. In view of the averments made in the application and in view of the submissions made on behalf of the learned AGP for the applicant before us, the delay in preferring the Misc. Civil Application is hereby condoned. Civil Application is allowed. COMMON ORAL ORDER in MISC. CIVIL APPLICATIONs 1. Evidently, the State is making out a case of reattempting to argue before us on the ground that if the dates of birth of the workmen concerned are taken into consideration, they would not even be eligible to be engaged in employment before the applicant-employer. 2. The second ground on which a review is sought is that a coordinate bench of this Court erroneously observed that the award was accepted by the State and no challenge has been made. 3. Para 17 of the order of the coordinate bench is pressed into service. 4. Having perused the award of the Labour Court and considering the decisions of the Supreme Court on the onus of proof as well as having come to a specific finding that there is violation of provisions of Section 25F, the Labour Court granted reinstatement without continuity and back-wages. On a challenge to the awards by the workmen, the same was moved to that of granting reinstatement with continuity of service. This was a subject matter of challenge in appeal before a coordinate bench, wherein, the Division Bench affirmed maintaining the fact that the respondents were entitled to reinstatement with continuity but without backwages. Para 17.4 to 17.6 of the judgement read as under: “17.4 As held by the Labour Court, there had been a specific direction issued by the Court and the evidence has been withheld and, accordingly, the Court has drawn an adverse inference in such an eventuality. The procedure to be followed at the time of retrenchment as also the mandatory provisions to be borne in mind while retrenching a person under Section 25-G and H. it need to be regarded at this Court that Section 25-F lays down the condition precedent to retrenchment of workman which requires employer to give notice to the appropriate Government apart from giving one month’s notice in writing or one month’s wage in lieu of the notice and payment of retrenchment compensation to the concerned workman. 17.5 It is also emphatically laid down in case of Empire Industries vs. State of Maharashtra, 2010 (4) SCC 272 that for attracting the applicability of Section 25-G, the workman in fact is not required to prove that he has worked for a period of 240 days during twelve calendar months preceding the termination of the service and it is sufficient for him to plead and prove that while effecting retrenchment, the employer violated the rule of last come first go without any tangible reason as per the case of Harjinder Singh vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, 2010 (3) SCC 92. 17.6 Section 25-H thus requires the workmen who have been retrenched to be taken into the employment and give him an opportunity. It speaks of the reemployment of the retrenched workman which presupposes a valid termination.” 5. Even if we were to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that the finding of the coordinate bench that there is no challenge to the judgement of the learned Single Judge, from one of the orders placed on record wherein the State has challenged the award, the very same learned Single Judge had dismissed the petition of the State on the ground that the application for condonation of delay before the Labour Court was entertained. Assuming for the sake of argument that the observation of the Division Bench is through a mistake, it would not stare in the face of it to change the result of the outcome before the Division Bench inasmuch as, the award itself was tested in one of the petitions in which the State failed. 6. At this stage, the learned AGP for the State would submit that the observations made by this Court may not prevent the State from approaching the learned Single Judge for recall/review of the order. This tantamounts to circumventing the very argument, which is not accepted. 7. No case for review is made out. Review application stands rejected.