JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.1.1999 passed by respondent No. 1 refusing to refer the dispute in regard to termination of services of the petitioner, for adjudication, only on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce the documentary evidence regarding his employment for 240 days during last 12 calendar months preceding to the date of his termination. 2. After having carefully gone through the material on record, in my opinion, the impugned order of non-reference is wholly unjustified and unsustainable. It is only a competent Court which can decide such disputed questions of fact and law after taking evidence of both the sides, more so, even if the workman has not completed 240 days, he is otherwise also entitled for relief under other provisions of the Act of 1947, like 25-G and 25-H. The adjudication cannot be denied to a workman in such a cursory manner. 3. Since the dispute of termination of services of the petitioner has yet to be decided by a competent court after taking evidence of both the parties, in my opinion, no purpose would be served in issuing notices to the respondents in the present writ petition. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 22.1.1999 is set aside and the respondent No. 1 is directed to refer the dispute of termination of services of the petitioner for adjudication to a competent court within thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.Writ petition allowed. *******