JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is Agragami Chhetra Vikas agency, Ajitmal Tehsil Auraiya District, etowah. The petitioner contends that it is registered under the Societies Registration act, 1860, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The Chairman is the District Magistrate, ex officio. It is on record of the written statement that the agency was assisted and encouraged by the State Government for the purposes of initiating silk industry in the area. The respondent, Hukum Singh, was appointed as a field teacher in January 1978. The services of the respondent were dispensed with on 2/2/1984 on the ground that they are no longer required. No cause was given in the notice by which his services were terminated. 2. The said respondent sought conciliation, under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial disputes Act, 1947, which failed and thereafter the matter was referred for adjudication. The matter was referred as adjudication case No. 54 of 1986 before the Labour Court, Kanpur. The issue before the Labour Court was that whether the services of the respondents had been terminated legally or not ? The Labour Court went through the evidence, which were produced by the parties. The Labour Court noticed that towards the end of the year 1982, to be specific 24/12/1982, there was an attempt to offer him another job by the District Magistrate. Whatsoever might be the reason, the said respondent declined the job. With the result he continued to work till 2/2/1984. The Labour Court held that the services have been terminated illegally and directed that the back-wages effective from the date of termination be paid and simultaneously directed reinstatement. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner-society before this Court, that the award is illegal. Two submissions have been made : (a) that the project which the society had undertaken was not an industry ; and (b) there had been a closure of the project and thus, there could not be a reinstatement. 4. Both the submissions before this court or the Labour Court are an afterthought. In the written statement itself there is not a whisper nor was there a specific pleading on behalf of the petitioner that the project which had been carried on was not an industry. 4. Both the submissions before this court or the Labour Court are an afterthought. In the written statement itself there is not a whisper nor was there a specific pleading on behalf of the petitioner that the project which had been carried on was not an industry. In effect, the pleadings in the written statement are writ large with the expressions to the effect that the respondent was working at the project which was a part of the "resham industry." The petitioner was conscious of the fact that the activity which was being carried on was an industry, and thus, it cannot be permitted to plead otherwise. So far as closure is concerned, this aspect was being indicated to the respondent after his services were dispensed with. The defence for the termination of the respondent's services, is closure. The Labour Court set on record that the order of the termination of his services on 2/4/1984, does not disclose any reason why his services were dispensed with. The petitioner cannot be permitted to take this defence now. Thus notwithstanding that there might be a suggestion for the written statement that the project had been closed, no error had been done by the Labour Court in not noticing the submissions. The order of termination, not the written statement, was meant to indicate that the closure had occasioned the termination of services. 5. The written statement was filed after the referring order had been presented to the labour Court for adjudication, and closure had not been made an issue when the services of the workman were terminated. If this had been the case then the reference would have been otherwise. 6. The next contention offered by the learned counsel is not a legal submission, but a practical aspect that the award contains direction for reinstatement and the society does not have the project where the petitioner was working. The record of the writ petition shows that there were occasions where the District Magistrate had utilised his discretion in offering a job to the respondent-workman and if the District Magistrate has the discretion to offer a job to this respondent in the past, then there is no reason why the petitioner cannot be reinstated on the Labour court's award. The record of the writ petition shows that there were occasions where the District Magistrate had utilised his discretion in offering a job to the respondent-workman and if the District Magistrate has the discretion to offer a job to this respondent in the past, then there is no reason why the petitioner cannot be reinstated on the Labour court's award. There is no error manifest or otherwise in the award of the Labour Court nor any illegality to warrant interference of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of india. The petition is thus, dismissed.