CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER- M/s. Maratt Rubber Ltd. , is a company incorporated under the companies Act having its registered office and factory at 6th Mile, Bannerughatta road. It has suffered an award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore in I. D. 24/1982. ( 2 ) THE dispute was referred to the tribunal on account of the dispute raised by five workmen who complained of victimization by way of retrenchment and that retrenchment was not in accordance with law. ( 3 ) THE petitioner in this Court was the second party Management before the labour Tribunal. On the pleadings of the first party/workmen and the second party/management, two issues were framed as under: 1. Whether there was need for the II party to retrench the above workmen and the same is bona fide? 2. Whether retrenchment is made in accordance with law ? ( 4 ) THE parties were asked to lead evidence and the evidence of the parties ended on both sides. After discussing the evidence led for the petitioner- Management the Tribunal has recorded a finding that there was no clear evidence to support the stand taken by the Management that the retrenchment had become necessary as a measure of economy. On the other hand what was admitted by the Management was that it was forced to lay-off for a considerable period and the workers had been paid the -vages required to be paid when a lay-off was resorted to. It was in that situation that majority of the workmen resigned and left. But no proof of such resignation was ever placed before the court. The Tribunal has accepted the evidence that the Management was a sick unit and is unable to even provide re-employment to the retrenched workmen. From that it is evident that the plight of the management was accepted by the Tribunal but justification for retrenchment of particular workman was never made out and therefore the Management was found fault with. ( 5 ) THAT petitioner-Company was facing various difficulties including an indifferent lawyer who ceased to practice is no ground for this Court to interfere under Article 226 with the finding recorded, that too on evidence which was led by the 2nd party, when no error of law is pointed out. ( 5 ) THAT petitioner-Company was facing various difficulties including an indifferent lawyer who ceased to practice is no ground for this Court to interfere under Article 226 with the finding recorded, that too on evidence which was led by the 2nd party, when no error of law is pointed out. Once the retrenchment is not justified by the evidence then retrenchment must be held to be illegal and if retrenchment is illegal what follows is reinstatement with back wages as a 'matter of course. ( 6 ) AS noticed earlier, the Tribunal has taken some what lenient view and directed payment of compensation from the date of retrenchment to the date of award with that the petitioner should be satisfied. Therefore there is no merit in this petition. Retrenchment was otherwise illegal because no evidence was placed that these were the employees who were admitted to the employment last. It was also found that in the period of sickness some work was carried on by the petitioner company with the help of casual labour. Therefore, there is no error in the award in so far as the petitioner is concerned. ( 7 ) IN this view of the matter this writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be rejected. Accordingly it is rejected but in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. Writ petition rejected. --- *** --- .