( 1 ) CRL. W. 564/2003 and CMs. 1287-88/2003 challenge in this appeal primarily is on the ground that it is not a case of master and servant relationship and that there was no termination of the workman, he in fact abandoned the service after he met with an accident. The industry of the petitioner has since been closed since the year 1985, and therefore, question of reinstatement with back wages does not arise. So far as the question of master and servant relationship is concerned there is a finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court based on evidence produced on record. The appellant has not been able to point out any fallacy in reasoning given by the labour court on this aspect. Similarly, the question of abandonment of service has also been answered in the negative which finding is based on evidence and we see no reason to interfere with the same. ( 2 ) AS regards closure of appellant s industry, it is for the first time in writ court that the management took the plea that the industry was closed in 1985. No such plea was taken in the written statement filed in the year 1986 before the Labour Court. Except a bald suggestion given to the workman in cross- examination that the industry has been closed, no evidence was led before the Labour Court by the management to substantiate the plea of closure of the industry in the year 1985. Even MW-1 appearing for the management did not say from which date the industry was closed nor proved the closure by producing any documentary evidence. In the absence of there being any evidence before the Labour court substantiating that Industry of the appellant stood closed with effect from 1985. Labour Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the services of the workman were terminated illegally and hence entitled him for reinstatement with back wages. We see no ground made out to interfere with the award of the labour court or with the impugned judgment. ( 3 ) APPEAL is accordingly dismissed.