ORDER T.S. Doabia, J. 1. This order shall dispose of two writ petitions namely; 1009/1991 (Ram Bhajan v. The factory Manager, J.C, Mills Ltd. and Ors.) and 1021 of 1991 (J. C. Mills Ltd. and Anr. v. Rambhajan and Ors.) preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The first petition was preferred by the workman and the other has been preferred by the management. The brief facts out of which these petitions have arisen are as under: 2. The workman was an employee of J.C. Mills Ltd. It is stated that the workman misbehaved on October 16, 1978. October 17, 1978 was a holiday. On October 18, 1978, when he reported for duty, he was informed that his services have since been brought to an end. Copy of the order passed in this regard is annexure P/1. The workman challenged this order of termination before the Labour Court by preferring a petition under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) The Labour Court took cognizance of the matter. As no enquiry was conducted before bringing an end to the relationship of master and servant, the Labour Court itself held an enquiry. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the workman was guilty of misconduct and accordingly declined the relief of reinstatement, but granted the back wages upto the date, order passed by it. Both the parties preferred appeals before the Industrial Court. The workman wanted the further relief of reinstatement and the management wanted the dismissal of the application in its entirety. The Industrial Court dismissed both the appeals. This is how these two petitions have come to be filed in this Court. 3. The argument on behalf of the management is that as the workman was found guilty of serious misconduct, therefore, there was no justification to grant back wages. According to the learned counsel appearing for the management, back wages should not have been granted upto the date when the Labour Court passed the order. Reliance is being placed on the decisions given by the Supreme Court reported as P.H. Kalyani v. Air France Calcutta (1963-I-LLJ-679) and D.C. Roy v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Ors. AIR 1976 SC 1760 . Reliance is being placed on the decisions given by the Supreme Court reported as P.H. Kalyani v. Air France Calcutta (1963-I-LLJ-679) and D.C. Roy v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Ors. AIR 1976 SC 1760 . It is pertinently pointed out that D.C. Roy's case (supra) deals specifically with the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 and, therefore, holds the field. 4. The workman, on the other hand, has placed reliance on the decisions given by the Supreme Court reported as Gujarat Steel Tubes Limited v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980-I-LLJ-137) and two other unreported decisions of this Court. 5. I am of the view that there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-management. The workman was entitled to wages upto the date when the Labour Court passed the order after holding an enquiry. The decisions given in P.H. Kalyani's case (supra) was considered by this Court in two decisions and it was held that the workman is entitled to back wages. Before dealing with the decisions of this Court, it would be apt to refer to para 13 of D. C. Roy's case(supra) and it reads as under: The second contention must also therefore fail. We would however, like to add that the decision in P.H. Kalyani's case (supra) is not to be construed as a charter for employers to dismiss employees after the pretence of an inquiry. The inquiry in the instant case does not suffer from defects so serious or fundamental as to make it non est. On an appropriate occasion, it may become necessary to carve an exception to the ratio of Kalyani's case so as to exclude from its operation at least that class of cases in which under the facade of a domestic inquiry, the employer passed an order gravely detrimental to the employee's interest like an order of dismissal. An inquiry blatantly and consciously violating principles of natural justice may well be equated with the total absence of an inquiry so as to exclude the application of the 'relation back' doctrine. But we will not pursue the point beyond this as the facts before us do not warrant a closer consideration thereof. The above para does indicate that there is no hard and fast rule as to grant or non-grant of back wages. But we will not pursue the point beyond this as the facts before us do not warrant a closer consideration thereof. The above para does indicate that there is no hard and fast rule as to grant or non-grant of back wages. In any case, the reasoning given in Gujarat Steel Tubes Limited (supra) was the reasoning which has been adopted by this Court. Thus this matter was considered in detail by a Division Bench of this Court in M.P. No. 1128 of 1966, Arvind Kumar Saxena v. M.P.S.R.T. Corporation and Ors. decided on January 30, 1992. The Division bench in para 6 of the order came to the conclusion that the authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, were within their rights to grant back wages upto the date when the Labour Court passed an award after holding enquiry. Para 6 reads as under: However, their Lordships, in Desh Raj Gupta's case, held still, following their own decision in Gujarat Steel Tubes's case (supra) that if the order of punishment passed by the Management is declared illegal and the punishment is upheld subsequently by the Labour Court, the date of dismissal cannot relate back to the date of illegal order of the employer. Upon so holding they found the appellant in that case entitled to his salary for the period of forced unemployment under an illegal order. Accordingly, in this case also, the petitioner cannot be denied that relief and indeed, he is entitled only to that relief because both Courts below have not given him any relief. The matter was again considered recently by Honorable Shri Justice A.K. Mathur, in Motilal v. The Factory Manager, J./C. Mills, Birla Na-gar, Gwalior decided on May 12, 1994 and M.P. No. 147 of 1983. The decision of the Supreme Court on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner was taken note of. It was categorically held that the ratio of judgment in Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd, (supra) would prevail. The decision of the Supreme Court on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner was taken note of. It was categorically held that the ratio of judgment in Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd, (supra) would prevail. It would be apt to note the observations made in Para 7 which are as under: "In the Present Case, it is a fact that no domestic enquiry against the petitioner was held and, therefore, the Management was given an opportunity by the Labour Court to lead the evidence so as to bring home the guilt of the petitioner/workman and Management justified before the Labour Court after leading the evidence of misconduct of the petitioner. But looking to the past 20 years of service of the petitioner, the Labour Court did not pass the order of removal and granted reinstatement but without any benefit of back wages. But the Hon'ble Supreme Court in identical situation, took the view that the incumbent will be entitled to the benefit of salary from the period i.e, the date of the order of discharge till the date of the order of the Labour Court when the order is justified before the Labour Court. To borrow the words of their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Guajart Steel Tube Ltd. (supra), that " a void dismissal is just void and does not exist". Therefore, in the present case, the dismissal is void ab initio as it was in the breach of principles of natural justice but a fresh breath was infused by the Labour Court when it found the incumbent guilty of misconduct. Therefore in this view of the matter, I allow the petition and direct the respondents to pay the wages to petition from the date of his discharge". Again no interference is required to be made in Writ Petition preferred by the workman. In view of the Division Bench Judgment in Arvind Kumar Saxena's case (supra) and the single Bench judgment in Motilal's case (supra), no exception can be taken to the order of Industrial Court. There is no merit in these petitions. Both the petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.