Veerendr Singh Siradhana, J.

The petitioner-State (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner/employer'), in the instant writ application, questions the legality and validity of the award dated 4th May, 2006, passed by the Labour Court, Ajmer, in LCR Case Number 10/1997, wherein the Labour Court answering the reference in favour of the respondents/workmen held the termination of their employment on 27th September, 1991, to be illegal and invalid. The Labour Court further recorded the fact that two of the workmen, namely, Smt. Fulmi and Smt. Sayri, died during the pendency of the proceedings. The petitioner/State was directed to reinstate the workmen, with continuity of service and full back wages. The monetary benefits on account of two workmen aforesaid were released to their legal heirs.

2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the indispensable skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy needs to be first noticed. The respondent/workmen were engaged on daily wages basis in different years in the year 1979 to 1987. The period of commencement of the appointment is as under:-

1.	Smt. Jamna	May, 1979
2.	Smt. Sayri	March, 1983 (dead)
3.	Smt. Fumli	March, 1983 (dead)
4.	Smt. Rafiqa	January, 1985 (dead)
5.	Smt. Bundunisha	June, 1986
6.	Smt. Surma	November, 1986
7.	Gopal	1st May, 1987

2.1 On the date of termination of their employment i.e. 27th September, 1991, the respondent-workmen completed, in the employment of the petitioner/State, a period ranging from four and half years to thirteen years. The details of each of the respondent-workmen are as under:-

1.	Smt. Jamna	13 years
2.	Smt. Sayri	9 years
3.	Smt. Fumli	9 years
4.	Smt. Rafiqa	7 years
5.	Smt. Bundunisha	6 years
6.	Smt. Surma	5 years
7.	Gopal	4½ years

2.2 It is pleaded case of the respondent-workmen before the Labour Court that the compensation paid and the compensation ought to have been paid in compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1947’, for short), was short of the required amount, and therefore, the termination of their employment was contrary to the mandate of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. Violation of the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act of 1947 was also specifically pleaded.

2.3 The petitioner/employer submitted it's response to the statement of claim and adduced evidence. The respondent-workmen placed on record Ex.W1 to Ex.W31. The petitioner/employer also produced Ex.M1 to Ex.M18.

2.4 The Labour Court taking into consideration the pleaded facts, evidence adduced by the parties and the materials available on record and after a proper analysis and appreciation of evidence, recorded a finding that the amount of compensation paid to the respondent-workmen in compliance of the mandate of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, was deficient but for one respondent-workman, namely, Gopal, who was paid adequate amount on account of compensation and notice, but his termination has been faulted for violation of mandate of Section 25-G of the Act of 1947.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/employer has assailed the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award dated 4th May, 2006, for being contrary to the facts and materials available on record as well as for the Labour Court failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. According to the counsel for the petitioner/employer, the respondent-workmen did not complete 240 days in a calender year. The opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Pritam Singh