Writ Petition No.7964 of 2011 (s) 02.11.2011 Shri R.S.Gaud, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner employer has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 07.06.2011 passed by the Labour Court, Ujjain in Case No.69/2006/ID Act Reference. Briefly stated the respondent workman raised an industrial dispute against his termination by an oral order dated 04.07.1996 passed by the petitioner. On failure of reconciliation the matter was referred by the Deputy Labour Commissioner to Labour Court, Ujjain for adjudication. After completion of the pleadings and after recording the evidence led by the parties the Labour Court answered the question against the respondent workman and denied to grant him relief of reinstatement and backwages holding that he had failed to prove that he had worked for more than 240 days in an year and that he was illegally retrenched. The said order on being challenged by the respondent workman in writ petition No.11243/2010 (s) a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.02.2011 quashed the order passed by the Labour Court and remanded the matter to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication after giving opportunity to the petitioner herein to produce the record which was summoned by the workman. Thereafter vide order dated 07.06.2011 the Labour Court answered the question referred to it in favour of the workman and directed his reinstatement without backwages. Feeling aggrieved the employer has filed this writ petition. On going through the impugned order, we find that the Labour Court on appreciation of evidence has recorded a finding that the respondent workman was working as Nakedar with the petitioner employer from 16.02.1994 and his services were terminated on 04.07.1996 by an oral order. Before the Labour Court the workman in his evidence deposed that he had continuously worked for more than 240 days in the year prior to his termination. He was not paid retrenchment compensation, no notice or wages in lieu of notice pay was paid to him, no permission was taken from the Labour Commissioner for his retrenchment and number of workmen appointed after him are working. The petitioner employer inspite of directions issued by this Court and also inspite of the orders passed by the Labour Court summoning the record, failed to produce the complete record to contradict the evidence led by the respondent workman. The record which was already produced by the petitioner was found by the Labour Court to be incomplete. No witness to establish the stand taken by the petitioner was produced. Having regard to this, the Labour Court recorded a finding of fact that the respondent has been illegally retrenched. In the circumstances, the Labour Court ordered reinstatement of the respondent denying him the backwages, noticing the fact that he was daily wager. We find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Labour Court warranting interference 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.