1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1872 OF 2010 Manager, M.S. Seeds Ltd. -: VERSUS :- Sakharam Ramchandra Fuke Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : AUGUST 26, 2010. Heard Shri S.G. Jagtap, learned Counsel for petitioner. This Court has issued notice on 30.04.2010. On 14.06.2010 no body appeared for respondent though he is served. On 05.07.2010 this Court issued notice for final disposal and made it returnable on 11.08.2010. Respondent is again served and he chose not to appear. He was absent on 12.08.2010 and hence, one chance was given to him and matter came to be adjourned to today. Today again there is no appearance for him. Shri Jagtap, learned counsel points out that the petitioner Industry is declared as seasonal industry on 15.09.1994 w.e.f. 15.10.1994 whereas the services of 2 respondent were terminated on 01.07.1994. Hence, as at that time Industry was not a seasonal establishment, completion of 240 days of continuous service was the relevant norm and while deciding Reference I.D.A. No.93/1995 the Labour Court has applied the norm of 120 days continuous service which become relevant only after 15.09.1994. In the alternative, he also points out that the Labour Court has declined back wages, but then has ordered reinstatement with continuity. As the respondent was on daily wages and therefore was not occupying any post, according to the learned counsel, grant of continuity is unsustainable. With his assistance, I have perused the award dated 05.10.2009. Labour Court has partly answered the reference in affirmative and denied back wages to respondent. It has directed petitioner to reinstate him with continuity. The said direction is to reinstate him in service on daily wages “as previous”. Thus in same manner in which he was working before 01.07.1994 the petitioners are directed to accommodate him back in service. With the result, it is apparent that he is not asked to be reinstated on any post as such. It is also apparent that the grant of continuity is only for the purpose of protecting his seniority to claim of such work on daily wages, when ever the same is available. In view of the admitted employment of respondent with petitioner, it is clear that when ever work becomes 3 available again, as per seniority he is entitled to claim it, because of provisions of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. The impugned award has only restored the position. I, therefore, do not find any prejudice caused to the petitioner by allowing the claim of respondent by using norm of completing 120 days for period when industry of petitioner was not recognized as seasonal establishment. In view of this position and clarification, Writ Petition is partly allowed. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.