JUDGMENT : Asper Shantanu Kemkar , J.:- Thisorder shall also govern the disposal of W.P. No. 86, 89, 92, 95 and 98 of 2011(S). For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from W.P. No. 84 of 2011. 2.This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is directedagainst the award dated 31-3-2010 passed by Labour Court , Ujjain in CaseNo. 53/2006/ID Act Reference by which the Labour Court had ordered reinstatement of the third respondent without back wages. 3.Briefly stated, challenging his oral order of termination from service, thethird respondent had approached the Labour Commissioner for making reference under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Deputy Labour Commissioner referred the dispute to the Labour Court , Ujjain .The Labour Court after recording the evidence led by the parties held that the third respondentwas working on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector with the petitioner- Krishi Upaj Mandi , Mabidpur from 1-8-1995 and was removed by an oral order dated 31-12-1997 .The Labour Court recorded a finding that he had worked with the petitioner for more than 240days continuously in the year preceding to his termination. It also held thatthe termination is illegal, retrenchment as the procedure for retrenchmentprovided under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was notfollowed. A finding has also been recorded by the Labour Court that though therecord about salary and attendance of the third respondent was summoned but inspite of an order being passed, it was not produced. In the circumstances bydrawing adverse inference, the Labour Court held that the petitioner has illegallyretrenched the third respondent. As regards the delay in raising the disputechallenging the termination, the Labour Court has observed that there is no limitationfixed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, for the delay, the Labour Court declined to grantback wages and directed reinstatement of the third respondent without backwages. 4.Having gone through the impugned award and alter considering the grounds raisedby petitioner, we are of the view that the petition has no merit. 5.On going through the impugned award and the record we find that on theapplication for summoning the record a specific order was passed by the Labour Court directing the petitioner to produce the recordabout payment of salary, attendance register pertaining to third respondent,however, in spite of the said order the petitioner had failed to produce therecord. 5.On going through the impugned award and the record we find that on theapplication for summoning the record a specific order was passed by the Labour Court directing the petitioner to produce the recordabout payment of salary, attendance register pertaining to third respondent,however, in spite of the said order the petitioner had failed to produce therecord. In the circumstances, the Labour Court drawnadverse inference and after taking into consideration the evidence led by theparties, the Labour Court held that third respondenthas been able to prove that he had worked for more than 240 days continuouslyin the year preceding to his termination. The view taken by the Labour Court appears to be justified and gets support fromthe law laid down in the matter of Sita Ram andothers Vs. Motilal Nehru Ear/tiers TrainingInstitute, (2008) 117 FLR 1191, Sri ram Industrial Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Mahak Singh and others, (2007) 4 SCC 94 , Sanjay Kumar Vs.Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat , Ratlam , (2010) 3 MPLJ 457 , Naveen Singh Bhadoriya Vs. State of M.P. and others, (2010)4 MPLJ 212. 6.It is also well settled that since there is no limitation under the IndustrialDisputes Act for raising the dispute abouttermination, reference cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. The delay canbe a ground a deny the back wages. [ Sec: Karan Singh Vs. Executive Engineer, Haryana State Marketing Hoard, (2008) 116 FLR 237, Irrigation Research Institute and anotherVs. Kripal Singh, (2008) 116 1;LR 178]. In thepresent case, also for the delay in raising the dispute the Labour Court has rightly deniedback wages to the third respondent. 7.In the circumstances, in our view, the third respondent's termination was anillegal retrenchment as the same has been done without following procedure, therefore, the same has rightly been set aside bythe Labour Court .( See : Anoop Sharma Vs.Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No. 1, Panipat ( Haryana ), (2010) 4 MPLJ 39; Krishna Bahadur Vs. M/s Puma Theatre and others, (2004) 103 FLR116). 8.As a result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 9.No orders as to costs.