JUDGMENT : S.P. Kulkarni, J.—This petition is preferred by the original employees who had approached the Industrial Court with a complaint under the Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, by contending, that though they are the seasonal employee employed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Cotton Growers Marketing Federation still they having completed their employment for a period of more than 240 days, they were entitled to have the status of a regular employee and their services were not liable to be disengaged because of the season coming to an end. 2. Their grievance was not accepted by the Industrial Court and their complaint came to be dismissed. The Industrial Court was of the view that the conditions of these employees cannot be equated with the regular employees and their character that they are the seasonal employees cannot be brushed aside and, therefore, when they were disengaged when the season came to an end, in the act of such disengagement there was no 'unfair labour practice'. 3. The complaint having thus been dismissed, the employees sought to prefer the present petition challenging the dismissal of their complaint on the strength of the above view held by the Industrial Court. 4. When this matter is called on for hearing, at the out set, it was pointed out that in the case of M.S. Co-op. Cotton Growers' Marketing Federation Ltd. and Anr. v. M.S. Coop. Cotton Growers' Marketing Federation Employees' Union and Anr., reported in AIR 1994 SC 1046 , the Supreme Court had also the occasion to observe that seasonal employees arc governed by their own service conditions which have in material respects no relation to service conditions of perennial employees governed by any Model Standing Orders or by any award that has been passed in relation to such employees. 5. 5. In essence the position that the claim of the present petitioners, made by them in their complaint before the Industrial Court, now in the light of the above decision of the Supreme Court, is no more available for any further challenge in the present petition is not disputed, as it must be said to the credit of the learned advocate for the petitioners that such is the situation that occurs in the light of the observation of the Supreme Court and, therefore, on the subject of law applicable to seasonal employment, he would not be in a position to justify his contentions, has been fairly an accepted position. 6. In view of the position of law that is not controverted and further in view of the fact that the contentions advanced in this petition cannot be considered to be justifiable in the light of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.