Ashok Parihar, J.-The case has come up on an application filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the concerned workman’) under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, on joint request of Counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard finally on merits also.

2. Petitioner has challenged Award dated July 31, 1993, passed by Labour Court, Kota, by which termination of services of the concerned workman has been held to be illegal and unjustified and he has been ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages.

3. After hearing Counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record and also the impugned Award.

4. The Labour Court, on the basis of evidence and material on record, has come to a finding of fact that the concerned workman had worked for more than 240 days in the last 12 calendar months. However, before terminating her services compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act was not made, as such, the termination was not legal. Though, a plea was taken by the petitioner Corporation that at the time of termination the concerned workman was off