( 1 ) LEARNED Advocate Ms. Sejal K. Mandavia appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Learned Advocate Mr. D. M. Thakker appearing on behalf of the respondent. Rule, Mr. D. M. Thakker Learned Advocate on behalf of respondent waives the service of rule. With the consent of both the Learned Advocates, the matter has been taken up for final hearing today. In the present petition, the award passed by the Labour Court, Surat in Reference No. 183 of 1986 dated 8. 10. 1998 has been challenged wherein, the Labour Court, Surat has granted reinstatement with continuity of service with full back wages of interim period with all consequential benefits. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the respondent was appointed as a Clerk on 7th September, 1982 and his service was terminated on 16th April, 1986. At the time of termination Section 25-F has not been followed by the petitioner. Though the case of petitioner that at the time of termination the notice was given and Rs. 372/which was sent to the respondent but same was not accepted by the respondent. The amount of Rs. 372. 00 was not the complete retrenchment compensation because, in all four years service has been completed by respondent and therefore, respondent was entitled for 2 months salary by way of the retrenchment compensation and it was not the case of petitioner that two months salary by way of the retrenchment compensation were sent to the respondent. In paragraph 8 of the Labour Court in terms comes to the conclusion that in the year 1983-1984 304 days, 1984-1985 339 days and in the year 1985-1986 360 days actual working has been proved by the respondent and in clear finding of fact the Section 25-F has been violated by the petitioner and therefore, considering the reasoning and the conclusion of the Labour Court which is based upon legal evidence. The Labour Court has not committed any error while setting aside the termination order with a direction of granting reinstatement with continuity of service with all consequential benefits. The contention of Ms. Mandavia that at the time of termination the rentrenchment compensation were paid to the respondent workman and considering the cross-examination of respondent workman wherein, he admits that the amount of retrenchment compensation was offered to the respondent but, same was refused by the respondent-workman. The said amount which was offered Rs. 372. 00 which was not accepted by the respondent workman. The one month notice was given prior to termination which fact was admitted by respondent workman. Ms. Mandavia relied upon the evidence of respondent-workman wherein, he was cross-examined by petitioners advocate. But, facts remained that total service of respondent-workman was three years seven months and nine days. Therefore, workman is entitled for retrenchment compensation of four years which comes to two months salary and therefore, the amount of Rs. 372/which was offered as retrenchment compensation as per say of petitioner, is not complete amount of retrenchment compensation and therefore, the termination order is not passed after complying provision of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, the finding of the Labour Court is correct, legal and valid which does not require interference so far it relating to direction of granting reinstatement with continuity of service with all consequential benefits.

( 2 ) NOW question is required to be examined so far relating to the question of granting full back-wages of interim period as directed by the Labour Court. In the present case the termination was dated 16. 04. 1986. Date of reference is dated 20th June, 1986 and date of award is 8th October, 1998. The net result is that the respondent who had worked about three and half year with the petitioner, is entitled to the the salary of about 12 years without having worked for the intervening period. Whether in such circumstances, the full back wages can be grant