Writ Petition No.13412 of 2010 14.10.2011 Shri Nitin Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioners. Heard on the question of admission. By filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 21.04.2010 passed by the Labour Court, Indore in Case No.57/08 Reference ID, whereby the respondents have been reinstated in service without back wages. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that the respondents workmen were appointed in the year 1997 in the petitioners' corporation for a period of 29 days and continuously worked for 240 days in a Calender Year up to 2001. However their services were terminated on 28.02.2001. The case of the respondents workmen was that thereafter also they were directed to work up to October, 2001 but they were not paid the salary for the period 28.02.2001 to 1.11.2001. They approached the authorities of the petitioners to reinstate them and to pay arrears of salary. However the request was not accepted on the ground that they were engaged for 29-29 days and they had not worked continuously for 240 days in a Calender Year and since they were Daily Wage employees there was no notice and retrenchment compensation was required to be given. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents workmen approached to the Assistant Labour Commissioner by filing application under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act). As there was no amicable settlement between the parties, as a result, the Assistant Labour Commissioner recorded failure of conciliation and referred the dispute to the Labour Court, Indore for its adjudication. The Labour Court after giving opportunity of leading evidence to the parties passed the impugned award dated 21.04.2010, whereby the respondents workmen have been reinstated in service without back wages. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid award dated 21.04.2010 the petitioners have filed this petition before this Court. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the finding given by the Labour Court that the respondents workmen worked for 240 days in a Calender Year, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, as the respondents workmen were not regular workmen in the petitioners' corporation and only as and when their services were required they were engaged for a period of 29 days. In order to prove their case, the workmen examined themselves and one Prem Tiwari s/o Sadashiv and produced and proved documents Exhibits P-26 to P-63 and Ex. P-74 to P-141. The petitioner examined one witness Prem Tiwari. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties including the salary and payment registers, the labour Court recorded a finding that the respondents workmen had proved that they had worked for more than 240 days in a year and were working with the petitioners since 1997 to 28.02.2001 and prior to their termination they were not paid retrenchment compensation. The finding given by the labour Court in respect of engagement of 240 days of the respondents in a Calender Year has been established by the aforesaid documentary as well as oral evidence and therefore, in our view, the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners have no force. It is not in dispute that prior to termination of the respondents' service the requirement of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act was not complied with. In the circumstances, in our view the order of the Labour Court needs no interference by this Court in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. (Shantanu Kemkar) (Prakash Shrivastava) Judge Judge AM.