JUDGMENT : Mr. S.C. Sharma, J. 1. Parties through their counsel. 2. The petitioner before this court Larsen & Toubro Case Equipment Pvt. Ltd., has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the award dated 08-12-2006 passed by the Labour Court in LC No. 72/NOUR/04 by which the Labour Court has directed reinstatement of the workmen without back wages. An appeal was preferred against the award passed by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court in Civil Appeal No. 8/MPIR/07 decided on 04-02-2009 has partly allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner employer. The reinstatement without back wages has been affirmed. 3. The facts of the case reveal that the workmen in question was employed on 02-06-1994 and he was confirmed on 14-12-1994. While he was serving the employer without complying with the provisions under the MP Industrial Relations Act, 1960 his services were put to an end. No kind of enquiry was conducted and his services were put to an end on 29-11-2004. The matter has finally travelled to the Labour Court and the Labour Court has passed the award on 08-12-2006 holding the workman to be entitled for reinstatement without back wages. The appeal preferred by the employer has been dismissed and the employee has been reinstated without back wages and the employee is still continuing in service. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued before this court that the workman in question was employed in the capacity of Supervisory as well as Administrative capacity. Therefore, he was not workmen. Hence, the shelter of provisions under the MP Industrial Relations Act, 1960 could not have been availed by the workmen and, therefore, the award passed by the Labour court and the order passed by the Industrial court deserves to be set-aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has argued before this court that in fact the employee was a workmen and the Labour Court has dealt in about the nature of work, which was performed by the respondent and the findings of fact have been arrived at by the court below holding employee to be workmen and as his services were put to an end without following the prescribed provisions as contained under the MP Industrial Relations Act, 1960, without paying retrenchment compensation without holding departmental inquiry his reinstatement is justified. It is true that the workmen has also filed a petition claiming back wages for the period he was out of service that is Writ Petition No. 3267/2009. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In the present case the undisputed facts reveal that workmen was appointed in the year 1994 and his services were put to an end on 29-11-2004, without holding any inquiry in the matter and he was also not granted retrenchment compensation. It is also an undisputed fact that workmen has served with the petitioner employer for more than 240 days in a calender year. The Labour Court has meticulously appreciated the evidence which was brought before it in respect of the service conditions of the workmen and has arrived at a conclusion that the employee was in fact a workmen and without following the prescribed procedure the Retrenchment order has been passed. 7. This court has carefully gone through the order passed by the Labour Court as well as the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal and as they are based on evidence, the courts below were justified in directing the reinstatement of the petitioner, without back wages. 8. This court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders. Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed as well as the connected writ petition filed by the workmen for grant of back wages also stands dismissed. 9. No order as to costs. 10. Certified copy as per rules.