JUDGMENT 1. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on I.A. No.6332/2009 an application filed for condoning the delay of 173 days in filing of this appeal. 2. Keeping in view the reasons given in the application and finding the delay to be reasonably explained, I.A. No.6332/2009 is allowed. Delay in filing of this writ appeal is condoned. 3. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on the question of admission. 4. Calling in question tenability of an order dated 11.1.2008 passed by the writ Court W.P. No.949/2006 (s) this appeal has been filed under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005. 5. Respondent No.2 was working as a daily wages employee in the establishment of the appellants. Initially his services were terminated and therefore, he raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Finding the termination to be retrenchment without complying with the condition preceded as contemplated under section 25(F), he was directed to be reinstated and consequential benefits of backwages was also granted. After his reinstatement, it is seen that the employee concerned remained unauthorizedly absent and therefore, after conducting a departmental enquiry his services were again terminated on account of misconduct of unauthorized absence. He was treated as a regular employee. The employee challenged the termination before the Deputy Registrar and the Deputy Registrar framed various issues and came to the conclusion that the employee had attained the status of a regular employee after the award was passed by the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, he was not a daily rated employee and directed for his reinstatement without backwages. The matter travelled to the Joint Registrar and the Cooperative Tribunal, both at the instance of the appellant and respondent employee and finally it came to this Court in W.P. No.949/2006 (s), whereby, the learned Single Bench on 11.1.2008 found that the Labour Court has only directed for his reinstatement finding his termination to be retrenchment and came to the conclusion that by this the employee does not attain the status of a regular employee because of the award passed by the Labour Court, it is held that he continues to be a daily rated employee only. That apart, the writ Court found that the Cooperative Courts have consistently record a finding to the effect that the employee was not unauthorizedly absent, he was ill and on medical grounds he was absent. It was found that he has produced adequate documents to show his ailment and therefore, holding the misconduct of unauthorized absence as not proved, the learned Single Judged directed for reinstatement with backwages from the date 8.1.2003 upholding the award was passed by the Deputy Registrar, Joint Registrar and Cooperative Tribunal. 6. Having heard Shri J. K. Pillai, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Akash Choudhary, learned counsel for respondent No.2, we find that concurrent findings have been recorded by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Department, Joint Registrar, Cooperative Department, the M.P. State Cooperative Tribunal and the learned writ Court to say that the allegation of unauthorized absence is not proved, the employee was authorizedly absent, he had produced adequate material to say he was sick and was absent after proper information to the competent authority. The finding recorded concurrently by all the authorities are that the allegation of unauthorized absence is not established. This is the finding of fact based upon due appreciation of the evidence and material that came on record and we see no reason to interfere into the matter. The Learned writ Court has reasonably appreciated all the facts of the case and has directed for reinstatement with backwages from the date when the award was passed by the Deputy Registrar. Order passed by the learned writ Court being in accordance with law, we see no error in the same, warranting interference. Appeal is therefore, dismissed.