1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4751/2010 President, Digantar (Digantar Shiksha Evam Khelkood Samiti) & Anr. vs. Kailash Meena & Anr. Date of order : 7/4/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Kailash Chand Kumbhkar for the petitioners. ****** This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 21.12.09 by which the termination of the respondent-workman dated 12.1.1999 has been held to be illegal and he has been held entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service, but without any back wages. Shri Kailash Chand Kumbhkar, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that there was no evidence to show that respondent was never terminated by the petitioners. In fact, the respondent on his own left the job with a view to join better employment. It is contended that respondent requested the petitioners to issue an experience certificate and when he was issued such certificate, he stopped coming 2 to attend the duties, so it cannot therefore be said to be a case of retrenchment. Learned counsel submitted that if the respondent has some material employment with him, that is a obvious reason why he would not be willing to join with the petitioners. Learned counsel submitted that compliance of provisions of Section 25-F cannot be insisted in such a case. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the impugned judgement, I find that the learned Labour Court was persuaded to hold that provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has not been complied with because it was proved in evidence that respondent worked with them from 23.2.1996 till 11.1.19999 and that the petitioners could not produce any evidence to show that they issued any notice or otherwise called upon the respondent to come and join his duties. The plea of abandonment of service was not believed by the learned Labour Court and in my view, rightly. Once it was proved that respondent worked with the petitioners for 240 days in a callender year, prior to the 3 date of his retrenchment, compliance of Section 25-F could not be avoided. In any case, I find that the learned Labour Court has merely directed his reinstatement with continuity of service but without any back wages. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage submits that petitioners do not have the post of Driver and when they offered to respondent other kind of job, he was not willing to discharge such job. If that be so, nothing prevents the petitioners to again take recourse of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/