JUDGMENT : S.J. Vazifdar, J. The petitioner has challenged the order and judgment of the Industrial Court dismissing the Complaint under M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act wherein he inter alia sought an order to set-aside the order issued by the respondents on the basis of the advertisements given in the newspapers on June 22, 2006 calling the temporary workmen and new workmen and for a declaration that the recruitment of the workmen junior to him and the appointment of the new workmen is illegal. The petitioner had also sought an order directing the respondents to pay him wages at par with permanent workmen during his service as continuous. 2. Mr. Parmar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the impugned order ought to be set aside and the matter be remanded with a direction to the Industrial Court to hear the same afresh and to pass an order furnishing reasons for the same. I am not inclined to do so as I do not find the impugned order as warranting any interference. The learned Member has raised the correct issues and considered the same. 3. For the purpose of this order, it is sufficient to refer to only the main aspect on merits. The Petitioner was appointed during the following periods on temporary basis: (A) September 17, 1992 to March, 1993 (B) January, 1994 to July, 1994 (C) March, 1995 to October, 1995 (D) April, 1996 to November, 1996 (E) January, 1998 to February, 1998. The respondent employed temporary workmen for different periods depending upon its requirements. The reason for appointing, temporary workmen has been set out in considerable detail in the affidavit in reply. For instance, upon an increase in the requirement of the work during a particular period, the temporary workmen are engaged. When such work decreased, the contracts with the temporary workmen came to an end. Such temporary workmen were engaged only upon a subsequent increase in the work by issuing fresh contracts again on a temporary basis. The workmen engaged earlier were given preference over others. However those who did not turn up for work, lost their right/lien in respect of the entitlement to the subsequent appointments on a temporary basis. A list in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Orders Act was maintained. The workmen engaged earlier were given preference over others. However those who did not turn up for work, lost their right/lien in respect of the entitlement to the subsequent appointments on a temporary basis. A list in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Orders Act was maintained. The respondents in fact had very fairly been absorbing several workmen over the years on a permanent basis depending upon the situation from time to time. In this regard settlements were also entered into. 4. Whenever there was a requirement for temporary workmen, the respondents published notices in newspapers and issued the concerned workmen a telegram of such requirements. Each of these newspapers are widely circulated in Nashik, Pune and Aurangabad districts of the State of Maharashtra. 5. As stated above, the petitioner's last appointment was from January, 1998 to February, 1998. Thereafter notices were issued on May 19, 1998, June 2, 1998 and June 27, 1998 calling upon the workmen to report for work. The petitioner admittedly did not report for work. He therefore, lost his lien/right to be appointed subsequently. In fact several notices were issued stating that the temporary workmen who had not reported, would not be given priority in future. The respondent therefore did everything it could to provide the employment to the temporary workmen in accordance with law and in accordance with the settlements. The petitioner did nothing for eight years. He neither raised any grievance, nor any demand. 6. Mr. Parmar submitted that the petitioner's cause of action arose only in the year 2006 when a fresh advertisement was issued calling inter alia for new workmen. 7. These however are trainees. In any event, the Petitioner not haying responded to the several notices issued in the year 1998, cannot now suddenly seek employment even as a temporary workman or otherwise in preference to others who have been validly engaged. 8. Faced with this, Mr. Parmar submitted that the telegrams had not been issued to the petitioner. It is difficult to accept this contention. In any event, there is no prescribed mode of issuing notices to the concerned temporary workmen. The respondents admittedly caused to be published in the newspapers necessary notices inviting the temporary workmen to report for work. There is nothing to suggest that the petitioner was not aware of the same. He probably was engaged elsewhere. 9. In any event, there is no prescribed mode of issuing notices to the concerned temporary workmen. The respondents admittedly caused to be published in the newspapers necessary notices inviting the temporary workmen to report for work. There is nothing to suggest that the petitioner was not aware of the same. He probably was engaged elsewhere. 9. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed.