JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against the award dated 10th June, 1989 passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Kota in L.C. No.43/88. Respondent No.2 was employed as workman with the municipal Board, Baran. His service was terminated on 10.8.1984. A dispute relating to termination of the service was raised before the employer and the Government made a reference of the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Kota. Notice was given to the petitioner, but no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner before the Labour Court, Kota and, therefore, the matter was decided ex-parte. Respondent No.2 filed his affidavit saying that he had worked from 1.1.83 to 9.8.1987 and thus he had served for more than 240 days. His service had been terminated without compliance of the provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, therefore, termination of the service was liable to be declared void. Learned Labour Court accepted the claims for respondent No.2 and found that since he had worked as -" workman for a period of more than 240 days, compliance of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act constituted condition precedent before any order of termination could be passed. Labour Court, therefore, passed an award for reinstatement of the respondent No.2 with all consequential benefits. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two fold contentions in assailing the award of the Labour Court. First submission of Shri Jinesh jain is that the service of notice had not been effected on the Municipal Board and, therefore, the Labour Court had committed jurisdictional error in proceeding ex-parte against the Municipal Board. He has placed reliance on AIR 1949 Mad. 396 in support of his submission that mere non return of notice cannot be taken as service of notice. 3. I have carefully looked into the order sheet, which has been placed on record as Annexure-6. A perusal of this order sheet shows that on that day the Learned Judge, Labour Court has recorded that none was present on behalf of the management. The management had the notice of the earlier date of 8.11.1988, but none was present on that day also. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the order sheet dated 3.5.1989 has not been correctly recorded. The management had the notice of the earlier date of 8.11.1988, but none was present on that day also. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the order sheet dated 3.5.1989 has not been correctly recorded. From a perusal of the order sheet it is evident that the notice had been served on the Municipal Board prior to 8.11.1988 itself. If after service of notice, the Municipal Board chooses not to appear, it was not an obligation of the Labour Court to give intimation to it regarding the next date of hearing. The decision of the Madras High Court,to which reference has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application to the facts of the present case. In that case, the service was treated as complete and ex-parte proceedings were drawn only on the premise that notices were not returned. In this case, the order sheet dated 3.5.89 shows that the petitioner had notice of the proceedings, which were going on before the Labour Court, Kota. Therefore, I do not find any justification in the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the certificate issued by the Chairman of the Municipal Board could not have been relied upon by the learned Judge, Labour Court for coming to the conclusion that the respondent No.2 had served for more than 240 days. Shri Jain has placed reliance on the provisions of Section 68 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, which provide that the Executive Officer shall be responsible for custody of all records of the Board including all papers and documents connected with the proceedings of the Board and all the Committees and shall arrange for performance of such duties relating to the proceedings of such duties as they may respectively impose. In my opinion, this contention of Shri Jain also deserves rejection. Section 310 of the Act authorises the Chairman and Commissioner to make appointment on the post in Class IV service. Section 68 only relates to custody of records including all papers and documents connected with the proceedings of the Board. It no where provides for the authority which could issue certificate regarding employment of a particular person in the Municipal Board. Section 68 only relates to custody of records including all papers and documents connected with the proceedings of the Board. It no where provides for the authority which could issue certificate regarding employment of a particular person in the Municipal Board. This clause does not puts restriction on the authority of the Chairman to give certificate in respect of period of working of an employee in whose case the appointing authority is the Chairman himself. Moreover, it was for the petitioner to have produced evidence before the learned Judge, Labour Court to establish that the plea of workman regarding his having worked for more than 240 days was unfounded and that in fact he had not rendered that much of service during last 12 months. No such step had been taken by the petitioner before the Labour Court. 5. Consequently, I do not find any ground to interfere with the award of the learned Labour Court and the writ petition is dismissed summarily.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******