Judgment : This writ petition is to quash the order of the first respondent herein in I.D. No.127 of 1984 dated 26. 1987. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the second respondent whenever offered himself for work on a daily casual basis was engaged since 1977, when such work was available. Second respondent himself was running a country oil-crusher (Nattu Chekku) and subsequently doing business in sales of groundnut, gingelly seeds oh a commission basis and was also doing sale of coconuts. In December, 1982 the second respondent obtained a sum of Rs.15,000 from Khadi Board, Tanjore and installed a power driven oil-crusher. Thereupon on 210. 1982 the second respondent approached the petitioner for a loan of Rs.500, the petitioner refused to oblige. Thereupon on 210. 1982, the second respondent alleged illegal termination on 110. 1982 and claimed reinstatement. On 11. 1982, letter was replied by the counsel for the respondent. Thereupon, second respondent raised an industrial dispute, and ultimately the Labour Court has given the award directing the petitioner to pay only a sum of Rs.5,000. It is clearly mentioned in the award that the petitioner is not a workman and that he is not entitled to reinstatement and other benefits. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Even though the second respondent was served, neither he engaged any counsel nor filed any counter. 4. The finding of the Labour Court is very clear and specific. The last sentence in para 10 of the award is as follows: “I come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not a regular worker under the proprietor of Saibaba Oil Mills and he was not a workman as defined under Sec.2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.” The said finding has been arrived at after an elaborate discussion of the oral and documentary evidence. The findings appears to be correct. In such circumstances, there is no necessity for the Labour Court to go into the other questions and award a sum of Rs.5,000. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision in N.A.Joshi v. Centuary Shipping and others, (1994)2 LLN. The findings appears to be correct. In such circumstances, there is no necessity for the Labour Court to go into the other questions and award a sum of Rs.5,000. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision in N.A.Joshi v. Centuary Shipping and others, (1994)2 LLN. 923, wherein the single Judge of the Bombay High Court has held as follows: “I am of the clear opinion in view of the its own finding that the reference was not maintainable as the employee was not a workman within the meaning of Sec.2(s) of the Act, it was not proper on the part of the Labour Court to enter into the merits of the cases to decide what relief it might have given it the petitioner- employee would have been a workman. Apparently this Act of the Labour Court was purely academic. In fact, it was an exercise in futility. The Labour Court should have refrained from such unnecessary and futile exercise.” Following the abovesaid decision, I have no hesitation to allow this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.