JUDGMENT R. A. Sharma, J. - The Central Government by its notification dated 10-1-1983 referred the following dispute to the Labour Tribunal for adjudication : "Whether the action of the Railway Administration in relation to their Loco Shed, Northern Railway, Lucknow in terminating the services of the following 207 workers in Annexure with effect from 9-4-1987 is justified. If not to what relief are the said workmen entitled ? 2. The case set up by the workmen before the Labour Court is that they have worked for more than 240 days and their services have been terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Central Industrial Disputes Act. The workmen were not in possession of all the records, as such the Railway Administration was asked by the Labour Court to produce the relevant records including the attendance register and from the perusal of the award of the Labour Court, it appears that complete record had not been produced by the Railway before the Labour Court. 3. In the absence of complete records, the Labour Court has drawn adverse inference against the employer. On the basis of adverse inference as well as the joint inspection report filed on 29-1-1986, the Labour Court has held that 28 out of 207 workmen, whose case was referred to it, have worked for more than 240 days. This is a finding of fact and cannot be interfered in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The order of reinstatement of these 28 workmen by the Labour Court is fully justified and they have been rightly reinstated. Regarding other workmen, there is no categorical finding by the Labour Court. In paragraph 16 the finding recorded by the Labour Court is as follows : "From all those documents and from the management list filed on 29-12-86, it emerges that a good number of persons worked for more than 240 days." 4. Labour Court has not specified as to how many of the 207 workmen minus 28 workmen have actually worked for more than 240 days. In paragraph 18 of the award, Labour Court has further observed that in absence of cogent evidence by the management, it cannot be said that all the workmen did not work for more than 240 days. 5. In paragraph 18 of the award, Labour Court has further observed that in absence of cogent evidence by the management, it cannot be said that all the workmen did not work for more than 240 days. 5. If the management does not produce relevant records, it is open to the Labour Court to draw adverse inference against it. As the dispute referred was about 207 workmen, the Labour Court has to record a specific finding about each and every workman as to whether they have worked for more than 240 days. Except 28 workmen, there is no finding of the Labour Court specifying the workmen, who have worked for more than 240 days. The award, as such, suffers from serious infirmities. In view of what has been mentioned above, the writ petition is to be partly allowed. The award, so far as 28 workmen referred in paragraph 18 of the award is upheld and the Railway Administration is directed to reinstate them, is not already reinstated and they will be paid their back wages. 6. Regarding the remaining workmen, the award is set aside and the matter is sent back to the Labour Court for deciding afresh. The Labour Court shall give an opportunity to adduce evidence etc. and then record a specific finding as to whether they have worked for more than 240 days. As the matter has been pending for the last so many years, it is necessary that the Labour Court should decide the matter expeditiously preferably within four months. Learned Counsel for the parties have given an undertaking that they will cooperate and will not seek adjournment so as to enable the Labour Court to decide the case in accordance with the directions given by this Court. 7. In view of the observations made above, the writ petition is partly allowed. In the circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs.