Writ Petition No.8755 of 2011 (s) 11.11.2011 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 28.02.2011 passed by the Labour Court, Indore in Case No.35/09 Reference ID, whereby the respondent has been reinstated in service without back wages. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that the respondent workman was appointed in the year 1997 in the petitioners' corporation for a period of 89 days. He worked continuously upto 2001. According to him, preceding his termination he had worked for 240 days in the year. However his services were terminated on 28.02.2001 in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is also the case of the respondent workman that after his termination also he was directed to work up to October, 2001 but he was not paid the salary for the period 28.02.2001 to 1.11.2001. He approached the authorities of the petitioners against his illegal termination with request to reinstate him and to pay arrears of salary. However the request was not accepted on the ground that he was engaged for 89-89 days and he had not worked continuously for 240 days in a Calender Year and since he was Daily Wage employee, therefore, the termination was proper as no notice and retrenchment compensation was required to have been given. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent workman approached to the Deputy Labour Commissioner by filing application under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act) for conciliation. As there was no amicable settlement/conciliation between the parties, the Deputy Labour Commissioner recorded failure of conciliation and referred the dispute to the Labour Court, Indore for its adjudication. The Labour Court after giving opportunity to the parties to complete the pleadings and to lead evidence passed the impugned award dated 28.02.2011, whereby the respondent workman has been reinstated in service without back wages. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid award dated 28.02.2011 the petitioners employer have filed this petition. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the finding given by the Labour Court that the respondent workman worked for 240 days in a Calender Year, cannot be sustained, as the respondent workman was not regular workman in the petitioners' corporation and only as and when his services were required he was engaged for a period of 89 days. In order to prove his case, the respondent workman examined himself and produced and proved documents Exhibits P-1C to P-247C. In rebuttal, the petitioners have not examined any witness. On the basis of the oral and documentary unrebutted evidence led by the respondent the labour Court recorded a finding that the respondent workman had proved that he had worked for more than 240 days in a year preceding to his termination and was working with the petitioner since 1997 to 28.02.2001 and prior to his termination he was not paid retrenchment compensation. The finding given by the labour Court in respect of engagement of 240 days of the respondent in a Calender Year has been established by the 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 respondent's 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.