JUDGMENT Chy. S.N. Mishra, J. - The petitioner Sadri Roy has challenged the award of the Labour Court, Sokaro Steel City dated 8.10.1996 by which the court has held that the respondent Corporation, namely, M/s. Mica Trading Corporation of India Ltd., Giridih, was justified in removing the petitioner Sadri Roy from the services of the Corporation. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner Sadri Roy was employed as daily rated workman by the Corporation M/s. Mica Trading Corporation of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') Giridih on 31.5.78 on daily wages basis and his services were terminated on 5.8.78. He was again appointed on 24.8.78 and again his services were terminated on 19.11.78. It is alleged that he was again appointed on 24.11.78 but lastly on 28.2.79 his services were terminated. Thereafter, the Corporation declared lock out of the factory. Ultimately the lock out was lifted and, thereafter, all the 35 casual workmen including the petitioner were taken into service. Pursuant to the agreement entered into between the respondent Corporation and the Union including the Government and out of 35 workmen the services of 34 workmen were taken by the respondent Corporation except the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved by the decision of the Corporation raised Industrial Dispute which was referred to the Labour Court under Section 10(1)(c) of industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), in the following terms:- "Whether it is justified for the management of Messers Mica Trading Corporation of India Ltd., Giridih to remove Shri Sadri Roy from service? If not, then to what relief he is entitled?" The respondent Corporation appeared before the Labour Court and submitted that in terms of the demand raised by the Union and pursuant to the agreement entered into between the parties 34 workmen were taken into service except the petitioner workman as he did not put one year of service and also because of his behaviour with the officials of the Corporation during the period of his service as daily wages workman. According to tile Corporation the workmen were engaged on daily wages basis for a particular period as the entire Mica Industries depend upon the purchase order received from the foreign purchasers. If there is no such order received, the Corporation do not engage any casual worker. According to tile Corporation the workmen were engaged on daily wages basis for a particular period as the entire Mica Industries depend upon the purchase order received from the foreign purchasers. If there is no such order received, the Corporation do not engage any casual worker. Whenever the demand came from the foreign purchasers, certain casual workers are engaged and, that too, for a limited period. The respondent Corporation admits that all the casual labourers including the concerned workman were appointed on 31.5.78 and there services stood terminated on 5.8.78. Again when the order received from one buyer, the casual workers were again appointed on 24.8.78 who continued till 19.11.78 when their services were terminated. It is alleged that the concerned workman, namely, the petitioner, was given employment as casual worker for the period from 24.11.78 to 28.2.79 on purely temporary basis on the same term and he was never in continuous service of the Corporation even for 240 days in any calendar year and for even for 120 days during the period of the calendar months. Accordingly it is stated in their written statement that the concerned workman cannot claim any relief under any provision of the Act. The Corporation denied that the services of the petitioner have been terminated by way of victimisation and/or any mala fide intention. It is further alleged that the concerned workman never raised any objection before any authority when the other casual workers were re-employed in terms of the agreement arrived at between the Union and the Corporation including the representative of the State Government. It is further alleged that the concerned workman had committed serious omission and commission as casual worker and during the short span of time he not only started illegal money lending business inside the factory but was also in the habit of misbehaving with the officers of the Corporation and the fellow workmen. It is further alleged that the concerned workman once had manhandled one of the officers of the Corporation, namely, Shri R.K. Sinha for which a criminal case was instituted against the workman wherein a charge-sheet has been submitted against him. Accordingly, taking into consideration all aspects of the matter including the said agreement the Corporation has refused to take him into service. Accordingly, taking into consideration all aspects of the matter including the said agreement the Corporation has refused to take him into service. The case of the concerned workman on the other hand, is that he has worked for more than 240 days in preceding 12 calendar months and accordingly, it is submitted that the Corporation without complying with the mandatory provision of Section 25F of the Act terminated the services of the petitioner, which is quite illegal, unjust and, accordingly, entitled for reinstatement of the post on which he was working. Before the Labour Court the parties had laid evidences both oral and documentary in support of their respective cases and after taking into consideration all the relevant materials on record and after hearing the counsel for the parties the Labour Court has passed the impugned award refusing the relief sought for by the concerned workman. 2. In this case learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the award mainly on the ground that the relevant documents sought for by the court below having not been produced, the Tribunal ought to have drawn an adverse inference against the Corporation. It is further submitted that the workman though has worked for 240 days yet the Corporation without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Act, terminated the services of the petitioner which is wholly illegal and unjust. 3. Admitted position in this case is that the workman Badri Roy was employed by the Corporation on daily wage basis and that too, for a particular period in order to fulfil the contract of the foreign purchasers. The workman concerned has been paid wages for the period for which he has worked. Judicial notice can be taken of the facts that the entire Mica Industries are now in a very precarious condition as no order is received from the foreign purchasers. Previously purchase orders were being received from the foreign purchasers and in order to comply with the order, the Corporation used to engage some casual workers on daily wage basis. The Corporation admittedly employed 35 such casual workers during the period, in question. Subsequently 34 casual workers were re-employed except the concerned workman namely, the petitioner. Previously purchase orders were being received from the foreign purchasers and in order to comply with the order, the Corporation used to engage some casual workers on daily wage basis. The Corporation admittedly employed 35 such casual workers during the period, in question. Subsequently 34 casual workers were re-employed except the concerned workman namely, the petitioner. As has been stated above, the Labour Court has considered the evidence both oral and documentary and come to a finding that the concerned workman has worked for 216 days only and, as such, he is not entitled to benefit of Section 25F of the Act. It is true that the attendance register for the period after 4.10.78 was not made available on record, the court has come to a finding based upon the correct appraisal of the evidence, which cannot be interfered with by this Court sitting in its writ jurisdiction. No other point has been raised. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties in detail and perused the pleadings including the award under challenge, I do not find any illegality in the same. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed but without any cost.