S.S. Sudhalkar, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the workmen challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 13.3.2000, copy Annexure P/8, vide which the petitioner was declined the relief of re -instatement.
(2.) THE petitioner was a daily -wager, however, his work cannot be said to be not a seasonal one. Admittedly, the petitioner has not completed 240 days of service and this weighed with the Labour Court in deciding the case against the petitioner. The Labour Court, of course, has not considered the effect of plea of the petitioner that his juniors are still working. The pleading is specifically made in the demand notice while there is no reply to the same and no explanation is given for the same. The Labour Court has, therefore, missed this point.
(3.) THE effect of Section 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), in these circumstances would ordinarily lead to reinstatement. However, as the work of respondent mill is only seasonal, the question is what order requires to be passed.;