ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. The respondent was appointed as a daily-wager by the appellants on 25-7 -1988. Admittedly, he worked for about 170 days. According to the respondent after this his services were terminated by the appellants. According to the appellants, the respondent left on his own accord. Be that as it may, seven years later, in 1995, a demand notice was served by the respondent on the appellants claiming reinstatement and back wages. The dispute was ultimately referred to the Labour Court which framed the following three issues: "1. Whether the reference is time-barred as alleged in PO of W/3. 2. Whether termination of services of the workman is justified and in order? 3. Relief." 3. On the issue of limitation, the Labour Court relied on Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Coop. Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd.1 and decided d the issue in favour of the respondent. On the question of termination, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that although Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, had not been violated by the appellants, nevertheless Sections 25-0 and 25-H had been violated insofar as others who were junior to the respondent had been retained in service. The Labour Court then directed the respondent to be reinstated without continuity of service e and with back wages amounting to Rs 7000 by way of a lump sum amount. The Labour Court relied upon the decision of the High Court in M.K. Kohli v. Alfadeal Chemicals2. 4. The appellants challenged the award by way of a writ petition. No such challenge was made by the respondent. The High Court dismissed the f appellants writ petition. An appeal was sought to be preferred by way of special leave petition by the appellants which was rejected by this Court. 5. Consequently, on 2-1-2001, the respondent was reinstated and the Labour Courts award was given effect to by the appellants. After being reinstated in terms of the Labour Courts award, a writ petition was filed by the respondent before the High Court challenging the award insofar as it had g not granted continuity of service and back wages and only granted a lump sum amount of Rs 7000. The High Court noticed that the decision in Alfadeal2, which had been relied upon by the High Court had been reversed by the Division Bench of the High Court itself. The High Court noticed that the decision in Alfadeal2, which had been relied upon by the High Court had been reversed by the Division Bench of the High Court itself. Accordingly, the High Court granted continuity of service and full back wages to the respondent. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellants preferred this special leave petition. We are of the view that the High Court was entirely wrong in entertaining the writ petition filed by the respondent after the respondent had not in any way chosen to challenge the award of the Labour Court when the matter was being agitated before the various fora by the appellants. Having not chosen to do so and having allowed the award to become final by such affirmation, the respondent cannot be permitted to file a fresh writ petition and challenge the award taking grounds which were available to the respondent by way of objection when the writ petition was filed by the appellants. Accordingly, the decision of the High Court is set aside on this ground alone. 7. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.