JUDGMENT By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order passed by Presiding Officer, of Labour Court, Sagar dated 15.2.2000, whereby the respondent No.2 Pradeep Kumar Pandey, has been directed to be re-instated without back wages. The case as putforth by respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the employee') before the Labour Court was that he was a workman as defined under section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and was serving in the Krishi Upaj Mandi, Damoh. He worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year, as he was appointed on 1.10.1992 and was terminated from his services on 24.8.1993. According to him his termination amounts to retrenchment and because the provisions of section 25F and G of the Act, have not been complied with, hence he is entitled for re-instatement. Despite having provided several opportunities to the petitioner no statement of claim was filed by him, therefore, his right to file statement of claim was closed and later on the first party i.e. the employee was examined. The petitioner did not choose to adduce any evidence in the rebuttal. The learned Presiding Officer, of Labour Court, passed the impugned award and has directed to re-instate the employee. Hence, this petition. In this petition Shri Mahendra Pateria, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the appointment order of the employee was bad in law, because his father at the relevant point of time, made his appointment and no vacant post was lying. It has also been contended by him that no sanction post was available. So far as the first point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appointment order was made by the father of the employee, though at the first blush appears to be attractive, but on deeper scrutiny found to be devoid of any force. No where, before the Labour Court, such a stand was taken by the petitioner. No document pertaining to this fact was ever filed by him. There is no cross-examination on the employee in this regard. This point has not been even pleaded in writ petition, no document in this regard has been annexed to this petition nor it has been shown during the argument. No document pertaining to this fact was ever filed by him. There is no cross-examination on the employee in this regard. This point has not been even pleaded in writ petition, no document in this regard has been annexed to this petition nor it has been shown during the argument. For the first time this submission is raised during the course of argument and that too without showing any document in this behalf. It is well settled in law that the point which was not raised before the Tribunal cannot be raised for the first time before this Court, under a writ jurisdiction. Hence, the first submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of any force and is hereby rejected. The other submission which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no sanction post and no post is lying vacant and therefore the impugned award, directing to re-instate the petitioner is bad in law. Suffice it to say that the Labour Court has categorically held and decided that the employee did work for more than 240 days continuously in a calendar year and hence without complying with the provisions of section 25F of the Act, his termination amounts to illegal retrenchment. The learned counsel for the petitioner failed to make out any case under any of the exceptions as envisaged under section 2 (oo) of the Act, and hence if the employee has worked continuously for 240 days in a calendar year, his termination amounts to retrenchment. Admittedly, the provisions of section 25F of the Act, have not been complied with. Though the position is well settled in law, but I would like to refer certain decisions in this regard, they are : (i) Deep Chandra v. State of U.P. and another, (2001) 10 SCC 606 . (ii) Choitram Hospital and Research Centre v. Cap. Devendra Kumar Shukla and another, 1998 (1) JLJ 261 . (iii) All India Radio v. Shri Santosh Kumar and another, 1998 (1) JLJ 401 . (iv) Pawan Kumar Shrivastava v. Municipal Corp., Jabalpur, 1999 (1) JLJ 37 . In this view of the matter, as provisions of section 25F have not been complied with, in my opinion the learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court did not commit any error in passing the order of re-instatement. (iv) Pawan Kumar Shrivastava v. Municipal Corp., Jabalpur, 1999 (1) JLJ 37 . In this view of the matter, as provisions of section 25F have not been complied with, in my opinion the learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court did not commit any error in passing the order of re-instatement. From the order it is also perceivable that some juniors are still serving in the Mandi and hence the provisions of section 25G of the Act, has also not been complied with. Therefore, in my opinion the learned Presiding Officer, of Labour Court did not err in passing the order of re-instatement. Resultantly, the petition sans substance and the same is hereby dismissed.