ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 14.11.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in Writ Petition No.4634 of 2013. 3. The appellant was appointed as daily wager with the respondents in the month of March 1984 and he was terminated in January 1985 without any notice. The appellant claims that he had been working with the respondents as unskilled heavy mazdoor since 1984, but despite the availability of work with the respondents, his services were terminated. 4. According to the appellant, on 25.08.1987, an agreement was entered between Maharashtra Jalsewa Karamchari Mahasangh and the respondents and it was agreed between them that the persons, whose services were terminated, who had rendered services for more than three months with the respondents, would be reinstated in service as per their seniority immediately after publication of seniority list. 5. The grievance of the appellant is that as per the aforesaid agreement, the seniority list was published on 07.9.1987 but the names of some of the employees including the appellant were not included, even though they had rendered services with the respondents for more than three months. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant and two others approached the Labour Court at Amravati by filing (ULP) Complaint No.148 of 1994. 7. The complaint filed by the appellant was allowed by the Labour Court by its order dated 15.09.2005. After referring to the evidence and the documents relating to the period 01.05.1984 to 30.04.1985, the Labour Court found that as per the Muster Roll maintained by the respondents, the appellant had completed more than three months of service and before termination of service, issuance of notice was mandatory as per the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, which was not complied with by the respondents. The Labour Court further held that despite the availability of work, the respondents had terminated the appellant while retaining the juniors, which was in clear violation of Sections 25(G) and 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court directed reinstatement of the appellant but without back wages. 8. Being aggrieved, the respondents filed Revision (ULPN) No.40 of 2005 before the Industrial Court, Maharashtra (Amravati Bench). The Labour Court directed reinstatement of the appellant but without back wages. 8. Being aggrieved, the respondents filed Revision (ULPN) No.40 of 2005 before the Industrial Court, Maharashtra (Amravati Bench). The Industrial Court, vide its judgment dated 10.04.2013, held that the respondents being a "Local Authority", the provisions of Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 are not applicable and hence the respondents are not covered under Section 66(b) of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 and, therefore, there was no question of issuance of mandatory notice. However, based on the agreement dated 25.08.1987 relied upon by the appellant, the Industrial Court dismissed the revision and affirmed the award of the Labour Court holding that the appellant had to be reinstated. 9. The writ petition filed by the respondents was allowed by the High Court and, by the impugned order, the orders passed by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court were set-aside. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and have perused the material placed on the record. 11. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the the High Court has not noticed the agreement dated 25.08.1987 executed between the Maharashtra Jalsewa Karamchari Mahasangh and the respondents, relied upon by the appellant based on which the appellant claimed seniority and reinstatement. The High Court simply observed that there was no finding recorded by both the Courts below regarding violation of Sections 25(F) and 25(G) of the Industrial Disputes Act and that there was also no finding by the Courts below that the appellant had worked continuously for 240 days preceding the date of termination from the service. 12. The High Court has not at all considered the agreement relied upon by the appellant and the points raised by the appellant. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for consideration of the matter afresh. We request the High Court to expedite the hearing of the Writ Petition No.4634 of 2013 and dispose of the same preferably within a period of four months. All the contentions and the questions, including the question of applicability of the agreement to the appellant, are left open. 13. This appeal is disposed-of, in the aforesaid terms.