Judgment :- By the award impugned in this writ petition by the management, the Industrial Tribunal found that the retrenchment of the affected workers was in violation of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the ‘Act’ for short) and therefore, they would be deemed to be in service till they are validly retrenched. 2. The issue that has been urged in opposition to this application under Section 17B of the Act is as to whether the said award is one for reinstatement. 3. The term “reinstatement” is not defined in the Act. Reinstatement is the resultant situation arising out of the intervention, by the statutory authorities or Courts, with the removal or denial of employment to a workman. This is how the concept of reinstatement is understood in labour jurisprudence. So much so, while it found that the mandatory provision, Section 25F, was not complied with, but circumvented by the management, the Tribunal had directed that the workmen will be deemed to be in service till they are validly retrenched from service. The effect of such an award, unless interfered with, is that the workmen are entitled to be employed by the Management in the establishment till they are validly retrenched or until their services come to an end, by any mode recognized by law. Even assuming that two views are possible regarding this issue, the one in favour of the workmen is being adopted. In the result, this application is allowed directing the respondent herein (writ petitioner) to pay the affected workers enumerated in this application amounts at the rate of Rs.100/- per working day from the date of admission of this writ petition, viz. 17-11-2004. The arrears due on this account shall be paid to them within a period of two months from today. Amounts that would accrue during the pendency of this writ petition shall also be duly paid on a monthly basis.