Judgment :- 1. The appeal is against the order of a learned judge who dismissed in limine the appellant's writ petition to quash the award of the Industrial Tribunal (Ext. P ). The issues raised for adjudication were: 'T Lockout of the factory by the management with effect from 1-2-1974 2. Denial of employment to 6 persons: (1) U. A. Aahmedkutty (2) C.Chandran; (3) C. Aboobacker; (4) T. Kunhikuttan; (5) T. Sukumaran; (o) A. Komu 3. The claims of other casual workers; if any 4. The suspension of 6 workers "' 2. The relevant discussion on these issues will be found in Para.35 and 36 of the award which, for convenience and to do justice to the argument of the appellant, we shall reproduce fully. There are two sets of paragraphs each of them numbered as 35 and 36 and we are re-producing the two sets of paragraphs (viz the four paragraphs in all). "35 Issue No. 2:-Union No.1 sponsor the case of these workers. They say that these persons were engaged in loading and unloading work as casual workers for about 3 years prior to the dispute. In August, 1973 the Union submitted a charter of demands and they demanded confirmation of these workers. This is W1 dated 16-8-1973. Demand No. 2 refers to these 6 persons. The union wanted the management to make them permanent employee? giving them all benefits. There were a number of conciliation conferences, WW4 speaks about this. There was no settlement and while this conciliation was pending the management denied employment to these persons with effect from 24-1-74 Representations were made about this to the management but there was no use. As a retaliatory step the management suspended the office bearers of the union. This resulted in a strike. The Union's case is that this work is regularly available in this factory and these persons were doing this till they were denied employment. W.W.1, W.W.2 and the union secretary say that this permanent work is available with the management and that was being done by these workers as temporary workers. The management says that this is a work available on a causual basis. It was being done by the workers in mixing and certain other sections. When they had enough work the management used to call these persons and others on a casual basis. The management says that this is a work available on a causual basis. It was being done by the workers in mixing and certain other sections. When they had enough work the management used to call these persons and others on a casual basis. This work will be available only when lorries come with raw materials. Prior to this this was being done by a contractor through his workers and for some time lorry owners used to get their own workers to unload articles. 36: The Management says that this work was available only very rarely. Mwl admits that they used to get vouchers for work done by the casual workers. There must be accounts also. If these accounts are produced naturally that would have shown the period for which they were employed or the duration of their employment. They are not produced here. If work was only available on such irregular intervals the management could have during the period of over 5 months when the conciliation was pending convinced the union or the conciliation officer about the nature of work. They have not done that. It is an admitted fact that presently they are employing workers in mixing and their departments to do this work. It is also said that sometimes they detain lorries if they arrive at night time, to unload till the workers in the first shift report for duty. This only shows that the work that was being done by these workers is of a permanent nature. It may be available only during irregular intervals. But the facts would show that these persons have been doing this for about 3 years immediately prior to this dispute. Hence they are entitled to be reinstated. They are to be given the job as they were being given prior to this dispute. They are not entitled for back wages. 35. Issue No. 3-Union No. I does not refer to this issue in their first statement. It is mainly a case of unions 2 to 5. These unions would say that the work of loading and unloading is being done through workers whose names are not mentioned in the muster roll. They get it done through workers under contractors. Though they work continuously they do not get benefits and in the Annexure to their statement they give 18 names. These unions would say that the work of loading and unloading is being done through workers whose names are not mentioned in the muster roll. They get it done through workers under contractors. Though they work continuously they do not get benefits and in the Annexure to their statement they give 18 names. According to this union these workers are liable to be made permanent. The management would say that the work of loading and unloading is being done by mixing copies which is the practice in textile mill. Sometimes this is being done by engaging casual employees and also they are not regular employees of the mill, and they are not entitled to any benefits. 36. None of the Union witnesses examined in this case refer to the case under issue No. 3. There is Ext. M2 a letter dated o-3-1974 from the President of Union No. 3 to the management requesting the management to give employment to all workers. The President was examined here as WWo and this was put to him He admits that he has sent this letter. When cross-examined he says that these 18 workers have worked in various departments. When he sent Ext. M2 on o-3-1974 the demand was only to give employment to all workers whose names find a place from No.1 to H in Annexure A to the union statement. 7 more names are also added in this annexure. He does not refer to their case in chief examination. There is no evidence at all regarding these persons. Hence no relief is being granted to these persons." 2. Counsel for the appellant contended that the workmen in this case, whose services were terminated and whose reinstatement was ordered by the Tribunal are casual workmen not entitled to reinstatement and not liable to be reinstated. For this purpose, reliance was placed on the decision of a learned judge of the Madras High Court in The Management of Cromption Engineering Company (Madras) Private Ltd. v. The Presiding Officer, Additional Labour Court, Madras & 3 others (1974 (1) L. L. J. 459). Having found that the workmen were casual labourers in that case, the learned judge proceeded to state: "If so, it is difficult to understand how respondents 2 to 4 can be directed to be reinstated. Having found that the workmen were casual labourers in that case, the learned judge proceeded to state: "If so, it is difficult to understand how respondents 2 to 4 can be directed to be reinstated. Essentially, an order of reinstatement postulates the existence of a post in which the particular person was working and with reference to which his employment was terminated. When there was no post and there was no termination of employment, but only there was the employment of a particular individual for a specific period or for a specific work, the employment automatically came to an end on the expiry of such period or after the work was over, and consequently there was no termination and there was no question of reinstatement. The result of this is that the Labour Court on an erroneous understanding of the scope of the judgment of this Court referred to already, straightaway held that notwithstanding the facts of the present case, the respondents 2 to 4 were entitled to be reinstated in the employment of the petitioner herein". 3. It was to examine the applicability of the principle stated by the learned judge that casual labourers have no right to any post and therefore there cannot be any reinstatement, that we admitted this writ appeal. But reading the two sets of Para.35 and 36 which we have set out earlier, we have little doubt that the Tribunal found in this case that the work of loading and unloading the lorries was work of a permanent nature although it might not have been available for being undertaken itself in sufficient frequency or volume to keep the workmen permanently employed. That by itself would not make the work one of a casual nature, nor the workmen casual workmen. Despite the strenuous argument to the contrary of Counsel for the appellant, we are satisfied that the finding of the Tribunal was that the workmen in question are not casual workmen and that they are therefore entitled to reinstatement. We see no ground to interfere with this finding recorded by the Tribunal. On this finding, there is no foundation on facts on which the question of law raised in the decision of Ismail J. noticed earlier can arise. We dismiss this writ appeal with no order as to costs. Dismissed.