JUDGMENT : Shantanu Kemkar , J . : - Thisorder shall govern disposal of Writ Petition No. 157/2008 (s), Writ PetitionNo. 158/2008 (s) and Writ Petition No. 974/2008 (s). Forthe sake of convenience the facts are taken from Writ Petition No. 157/08 (s). 2.The petitioner was working as Assistant Sub Inspector in the respondent Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti from 1-1-1991 .His services were terminated by an oral order dated 16-1-1998 . He challenged his termination fromservice by raising an industrial dispute contending that his services wereterminated orally without complying with the mandatory provisions of section25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act). On failure ofconciliation the Deputy Labour Commissioner inexercise of powers conferred upon him under section 10 of the Act, referred thefollowing dispute to the Labour Court, Ujjain for adjudication:- "Whetherthe termination of Ravindra Shobhawat S/o Rameshwar Shobhawat islegal and proper if not, then what relief he is entitled for and what directionshould be issued to the employer in this regard?" 3.On receipt of the reference the Labour Court gave opportunity to the parties to submittheir claim and reply. After recording the evidence led by the parties, the Labour Court answered the reference vide award dated23-9-2005 passed in Case No. 51/2004/ IDR in favour of the petitioner and directed reinstatement of thepetitioner in service with 25% back wages. Feeling aggrieved by the said awardthe respondent employer had filed a Writ Petition No. 1841/2006 (s). Thelearned Single Judge of this Court vide common order dated 5-4-2007 allowed thesaid writ petition and connected writ petitions bearing Nos. 2458/2005 (s),1839/2006 (s) and 1842/2006 (s) and remanded the matter to the Labour Court to re-examine the issue keeping in view thelaw laid down by the Supreme Court in (1) JT 1997 (4) SCC 560 , (2) State of Karnatakavs. Umadevi , AIR 2006 SC 1806 , (3) 2005(5) SCC 591 ,(4), 2007(7) SCC 575 and other cases, if any, on the issue. The learned SingleJudge also observed that the Presiding Officer would appreciate the law laiddown and would apply the said law to the facts of the case involved in theReference and will accordingly answer to the reference on merits either way inaccordance with law/emphasis supplied). The learned SingleJudge also observed that the Presiding Officer would appreciate the law laiddown and would apply the said law to the facts of the case involved in theReference and will accordingly answer to the reference on merits either way inaccordance with law/emphasis supplied). 4.In pursuance to the aforesaid the order dated 5-4-2007 passed in the said writpetitions and other connected writ petitions the matter was re-examined by wasexpected to decide the matter on merits either way in accordance with law.Thus, in view of the said categorical observations made by this Court inearlier round of litigation in our considered view the submission made by thelearned Senior counsel for the respondent is of nomerit. 8.As would be clear from the dispute referred to the Labour Court, the pleadings raised by the parties the Labour Court was required to decide as to whether the oral order of termination ofservice of the petitioner, allegedly passed without complying the provisions ofsection 25-F of the Act was valid or not and if not what relief the petitioneris entitled for. Thus, the case before it was not a case of regularization butabout termination from service alleging violation of section 25-F of the Act.It was a specific case of the petitioner that he was working with therespondent since 1-1-1991 till 16-1-1998 when hisservices were terminated by an oral order without complying the provisions of retrenchment. He also pleaded that before his termination hehad put 240 days continuous service in the year. Having regard to this, in ourconsidered view, the reliance of the Labour Court onthe judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (supra) was wholly misconceived as it had no applicationto the issue involved before it. The judgment of State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (supra) has no bearing on theinterpretation of section 25-F of the Act and the employer's obligation tocomply with the conditions enumerated in it. [See Anoop Sharma vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No. 1 Panipat ( Haryana ), 2010(4) MPLJ (S.C.) 39]. 9.In view of the aforesaid legal position, in our considered view the Labour Court has notappreciated the facts and law correctly. [See Anoop Sharma vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No. 1 Panipat ( Haryana ), 2010(4) MPLJ (S.C.) 39]. 9.In view of the aforesaid legal position, in our considered view the Labour Court has notappreciated the facts and law correctly. It has ignored the nature of disputewhich was required to be adjudicated by it and has mechanically applied theratio of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (supra) which relates to regularisation and has no application to the facts ofthe case in which the reinstatement is claimed by a discharged workman withoutany direction for regularization of his services. 10.In the circumstances, we quash the impugned award of the Labour Court and remit thematter to the Labour Court for passing a fresh award in accordance with law keeping in view the nature ofdispute which is required to be adjudicated by it, as expeditiously aspossible. Parties to appear before the Labour Court on 9-2-2012 . No orders asto the costs. Orderaccordingly.