ORDER : Though the matter is listed for preliminary hearing, by consent of both parties, taken for final adjudication. 2. Heard both parties. 3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court thereby rejecting their reference pertaining to the petitioners. The fact is petitioners raised dispute before the Government contending that they were appointed on NMR basis to work in the Grainage of Sericulture Department, Jamkhandi and were getting daily wages of Rs.13/- per day. They have worked for more than 240 days in any calendar year on several occasions and they were denied appointment in violation of Section 25-B of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 though juniors to them were retained. The first claimant is handicapped. 4. The claim was contested by the employer. On a full pledged enquiry, the Labour Court on factual analysis of the material placed during enquiry found that the claimants No.1 and 2 are not entitled for the relief. Since they have not worked more than 240 days in calendar year and claimant No.3 only is entitled for the relief. However, considering that there was a delay of 14 days in raising the dispute, denied relief to him also. Thus the reference came to be rejected. 5. As such, the provisions of Limitation Act are not applicable in Industrial adjudication. However, while moulding the relief the Labour Court has to take on itself the effect of the consequence of delay on the dispute. 6. In the given case when the Government itself had referred the matter for adjudication despite noticing that there was a long delay, in my considered opinion, the Labour Court could not have non-suited the 3rd claimant-petitioner. There was a finding that the denial of employment for him was against the provisions of Section 25 (F) of Industrial Dispute Act. In that view of the matter, the award of Labour Court is against the essence of Industrial adjudication. On the showing of the claimants itself, they were getting daily wages of Rs.13/- per day, if that is so. On an approximate, they were earning Rs.300/- per month and legally the 3rd claimant was entitled for salary three months on the date he was denied employment which is not done in this case. On the showing of the claimants itself, they were getting daily wages of Rs.13/- per day, if that is so. On an approximate, they were earning Rs.300/- per month and legally the 3rd claimant was entitled for salary three months on the date he was denied employment which is not done in this case. Having regard to the depreciation of value of the money, in my considered opinion, the 3rd petitioner Nandeppa is entitled for Rs.30,000/- global compensation towards benefit under Section 25 (F) of Industrial Dispute Act. With these observations, writ petitions are partly allowed. Consequently, the respondents shall pay Rs.30,000/- to the 3rd petitioner Nandeppa forthwith.