[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 1214 of 1997 BIRDA RAM V/S PALI CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD & ORS Mr. DK PARIHAR, for the appellant Mr. VIJAY BISHNOI, for the respondent Date of Order : 12.5.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI,J. ORDER ----- This appeal has been filed by the workman against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 01.07.1997, dismissing the writ petition, whereby the award of the labour Court dated 09.10.1987 was challenged. The learned Labour Court had found the workman to be not entitled to any relief as according to the learned Labour Court, the workman had served sometimes at the residence of the officer and some times in different branches and that he has not completed 240 days, as such is not entitled to any relief. The learned Single Judge found that no transfer order has been produced on record and that no allowance has been drawn on account of the transfer, thus, it was found that the workman had not been [2] transferred. Then, it has been found that the workman was employed on different occasions by different branch managers and the services rendered in different branches cannot be clubbed for the purpose of giving benefit under Sec.25-F. Interalia, with these findings, the writ petition has been dismissed. Arguing the appeal, learned counsel has drawn our attention to Annex.12, the affidavit of Laxmi Shanker, filed on behalf of employer and submitted that in Para 5,6 & 7 thereof the details have been given of the particular periods of time during which the workman had worked in particular branch and in that sequence in Para 7, the detail has been given about the workman working in Sumerpur branch from August 1982 to June 1984 and calculating the days, it has been made clear that in Sumerpur Branch, immediately before termination, the workman had completed 240 days, therefore, the logic applied by the learned Single Judge so also by the learned Labour Court gives an outcome of misreading of the record. Consequently, in the submission of the learned counsel, the impugned judgment and the award passed by the learned Labour Court are required to be set aside as requirement of Sec.25-F has not been complied with. [3] Learned counsel for the respondent, after reading Para 7 of the affidavit Annex.12 straightaway submitted that the respondent is prepared to reinstate the workman. In our view, in view of this statement, obviously, retrenchment order should go and the workman is entitled to be reinstated. So far as the backwages is concerned, in our view, since he was removed way back in the year 1984, it cannot be presumed that during all this period of time he was not gainfully employed, and also considering the fact that earlier he had served only in broken period, in the totality of the circumstances, it will be just and proper not to allow backwages. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed, the appellant is ordered to be reinstated forthwith, however, if the workman is not reinstate d actually within a period of one month, he will be entitled to 50% of the backwages. (KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. jpa/