JUDGMENT : R.K. Deshpande, J. 1. The Reference Court answered the Reference I.D.A. No. 38 of 1997 in the affirmative, setting aside the termination dated 16.05.1987 for non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Sections 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.D. Act'). The Labour Court had directed the reinstatement of the respondent to his parent job without back-wages and continuity in service. On 5th February, 2008, this court had passed an order as under; "Heard Mrs. Khade, learned AGP. Rule. Ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause "(C)" on the condition that the Respondent-employee would be continued on daily wages basis as and when the work is available. Mr. S.S. Patil, Ld. Advocate waives notice for respondent-sole. 2. I have gone through the statement of claim and the reply filed by the petitioners. The respondent has claimed that he had worked as daily-wager labour in the Public Works Department of the State of Maharashtra for the period from 1.4.1986 to 16.5.1987 continuously without any break. He was terminated from service on 16.5.1987, preceding which date he had completed more than 240 days service. It was also the case that his juniors were retained in service and hence, there was violation of Section 25G of the I.D. Act. It was also a claim made that there was violation of Section 25H of the I.D. Act in absorbing the new persons after termination of the petitioner from service. 3. The employment of the respondent was only for a period of 13 1/2 months. The Labour Court has accepted the contention raised by the petitioners that violation of Section 25F of I.D. Act has not been established. Though the respondent referred to several names in the statement of claims, the date of their appointments are not pleaded and the Labour Court does seem to have relied upon any such evidence in respect of the date of appointments of the named persons. In view of this, the finding of violation of Section 25G of the I.D. Act cannot be sustained. The reference to the Labour Court was in respect of validity of the termination of the respondent from service with effect from 16.05.1987. The reference was not for absorption under Section 25H of the I.D. Act. In view of this, the finding of violation of Section 25G of the I.D. Act cannot be sustained. The reference to the Labour Court was in respect of validity of the termination of the respondent from service with effect from 16.05.1987. The reference was not for absorption under Section 25H of the I.D. Act. The Industrial Court, however, recorded the finding about the violation of Section 25H of the I.D. Act in the absence of there being any such reference. The order to that extent is, therefore, without jurisdiction. In view of above, writ petition is allowed. The award dated 17.02.2006 passed by the Labour Court in Reference I.D.A. No. 38 of 1997 is hereby quashed and set aside. The reference is answered in the negative. Rule is made absolute in these terms. No order as to cost. Petition Allowed.