JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The Orissa Forest Development Corporation Limited has filed these Writ petitions, inter alia, assailing the Awards dated 8th February, 1995, Vide Annexure-4 to the respective Writ Petitions passed by the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case. Nos. 116, 118, 121, 122 of 1991. As the common questions of law arise and the facts of all the cases are almost identical, all the Writ Petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Opp. Party No. 2 workmen, in all the Writ Petitions were admittedly engaged as Mates by the Divisional Manager, Orissa Forest Corporation Limited, Angul in the Timber Division of the Corporation which was then in the district of Dhenkanal. According to the workmen they had worked continuously during the period of employment till their services were terminated. They raised industrial disputes. Conciliation having failed, the Government in exercise of the powers conferred u/s 10, read with Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act referred the following disputes to the Labour Court for adjudication : Whether the refusal of employment to the workmen by the Divisional Manager, Orissa Forest Corporation Limited, Angul, Timber Division in the district of Dhenkanal is legal and/or justified ? If not what relief the workmen are entitled. 3. Before the Labour Court the workmen in their statements of claim took the stand that they had worked continuously for years-together but the Corporation without any rhyme or reason or without following the mandatory provisions stipulated under the Industrial Disputes Act, all of a sudden, terminated their services. According to the workmen, such action was taken being enraged by the move made by the workmen to regularize their services. The workmen further submitted that before termination of their services neither notice was issued nor retrenchment compensation was paid to them and, as such, the orders of termination suffered from the vice of non-observance of the mandatory requirements stipulated under the Industrial Disputes Act and the same were liable to be quashed and the workmen were entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages. 4. The Corporation in its written statement took the stand that the workmen were Seasonal Workers and they did not work continuously. They were engaged on daily wage basis as and when work was available. 4. The Corporation in its written statement took the stand that the workmen were Seasonal Workers and they did not work continuously. They were engaged on daily wage basis as and when work was available. They had not completed 240 days of continuous service in any calendar year and, as such, issuing notice, or payment of compensation u/s 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act to them did not arise. The Corporation submitted that reference should be answered in negative holding that the workmen were not entitled to any relief whatsoever. 5. On the basis of the pleadings the Labour Court framed three issues. In order to substantiate their respective cases both sides adduced evidence, both oral and documentary. On discussion of the evidence the Labour Court arrived at the conclusion that the workmen had actually worked under the Corporation for more than 240 days in the calendar year preceding termination of their services and, as such, they were entitled to the benefit u/s 25-F (a) & (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court further observed that as no notice was issued the orders of termination of services of the workmen were bad in law due to non-compliance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and the workmen were entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages. But then taking into consideration the fact that the Corporation was facing loss, the Labour Court took a liberal view at the Corporation and directed that the workmen would be entitled to 50% back wages. On the basis of such conclusion the reference was answered holding that refusal of employment to the workmen was neither legal nor justified and they were entitled to reinstatement in service with 50% back wages uptodate. The said awards, as stated earlier, are assailed in these Writ Petitions. 6. According to the petitioner-Corporation, the workmen were never engaged on regular basis and on the other hand they were engaged as and when work was available, that too on seasonal basis. They substantiated such plea by adducing oral and corroborative documentary evidence. According to Mr. Tripathy, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner-Corporation, the Labour Court completely lost sight of the pleadings with regard to seasonal engagement of the workmen and also the evidence to that effect and, as such, the impugned award cannot be sustained in the eye of law. To add to such submission Mr. According to Mr. Tripathy, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner-Corporation, the Labour Court completely lost sight of the pleadings with regard to seasonal engagement of the workmen and also the evidence to that effect and, as such, the impugned award cannot be sustained in the eye of law. To add to such submission Mr. Tripathy reiterated that the corporation is running at loss and the work for which the workmen were engaged on seasonal basis no longer exists and, as such, the question of reinstatement of the workmen in service does not arise. He also substantiated that the finding with regard to 240 days continuous service in the calendar year preceding the retrenchment is incorrect on facts and, as such, the conclusions arrived at on the basis of surmises and conjectures cannot be sustained. 7. Mr. Das, Learned Counsel for the Opp. Party-workmen, on the other hand, forcefully submitted that the Labour Court has taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and the conclusions arrived at are just, proper and in consonance with the evidence adduced before it. According toppp. Party-workmen they had completed 240 days continuous service in the calendar year prior to the date of termination and their termination was without following the mandatory requirements of Industrial Disputes Act. It is also submitted that the workmen were entitled to the benefits u/s 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and any submission to the contrary is unfounded . It is further submitted that during hearing of the matter before the Labour Court the Corporation disputed the continuance and regular working of the workmen. To substantiate such case a petition u/s 11 of he Industrial Dispute Act was filed by the workmen for production of relevant documents including attendance register, wage paid register and the records maintained under different statutes by the Corporation. The Corporation, however, failed to produce the said documents and the Labour Court rightly came to the conclusion that the workmen had worked for more than 240 days and were entitled to the benefits u/s 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act and it is a fit case where the Writ Petitions should be dismissed in limine. 8. I have heard learned for the parties at length. I have also perused the notes of submissions and documents meticulously. 8. I have heard learned for the parties at length. I have also perused the notes of submissions and documents meticulously. The main contention as would be evident on the pleadings of both the sides as well as the submissions made is as to whether the workmen were SeasonalWorkers and/or were engaged as daily labourers. If the workmen were Seasonal Workers then the question as to whether after cessation of work the Corporation should allot any other work to the workmen has to be considered on different perspectives. If it is held that the workmen were engaged as seasonal workers and consequent upon closure of seasons they ceased to work, such cessation will not amount to retrenchment. If the workmen were seasonal workers, they cannot allege to have been retrenched in view of specific provisions of Clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act. This view was also accepted by the Supreme Court in the case of Morinda Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Ram Krishan and others etc., . In the present case, as would be evident from the impugned awards, the Labour Court proceeded with the cases being of the view that continuous work by the workmen under the first party exceeding 240 days was the sole question to be decided to determine as to whether provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act were complied with or not ? But then as would be evident from the pleadings and materials produced that was not the real question to be decided but the real controversy was as to whether the workmen were Seasonal Workers or not. Though Management in its written statements took a specific plea that the workmen being the Seasonal Workers were not entitled to any relief u/s 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act, it appears that the Labour Court did not frame any issue to that effect and proceed to decide the question as to whether the workmen had discharged 240 days continuous services in the calendar year preceding the date of their retrenchment or not. The Supreme Court in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Bhola Singh, has observed that when a workman is appointed in terms of a scheme on daily wages, he does not derive any legal right to be regularized in his service. The Supreme Court in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Bhola Singh, has observed that when a workman is appointed in terms of a scheme on daily wages, he does not derive any legal right to be regularized in his service. Completion of 240 days' continuous service in a year may not by itself be a ground for directing regularization particularly in a case where the workman had not been appointed in accordance with the existing rules. In the case at hand if the workmen were in fact engaged as Seasonal Workers then the entire reasonings given by the Labour Court would fail. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, after hearing Learned Counsel for the parties, I feel this is a fit case where the impugned Awards vide, Annexure-4 to the respective Writ Petitions are to be quashed and the matter should be remitted back to the Labour Court for fresh disposal after framing an issue as to whether the workmen were Seasonal workers or not. The Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed. The matters are remitted back to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar with a direction to dispose of I.D. case Nos. 116,118, 121, 122 of 1991 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year. Parties to bear their own costs.