As per case facts, the Petitioner Company challenged an Industrial Court order that found it engaged in unfair labor practices by employing workers as casual labor for extended periods with ... artificial breaks, denying permanency benefits. The Industrial Court directed permanency for some workers and placement on a waiting list for others whose services were terminated. The Company appealed, arguing that the Industrial Court lacked jurisdiction over termination disputes and failed to correctly classify the workers' employment nature. The question arose whether the Industrial Court had the jurisdiction to grant relief concerning termination of services and if its findings on unfair labor practices and permanency were justified for all workers. Finally, the High Court partly allowed the Writ Petitions. It upheld the Industrial Court's finding of unfair labor practice and granted permanency to the workers who were still employed, affirming that their grievance fell within the Industrial Court's scope. However, it set aside the relief for terminated workers, ruling that the Industrial Court lacked jurisdiction over termination disputes, which should be handled by a Labour Court.