( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and Order dated May 17, 2000 delivered by a learned single Judge of this court dismissing the Writ Application filed by the appellant/company herein. ( 2 ) IN the writ application the appellant herein prayed, inter alia, for the following reliefs:'a writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents, their men and agents and/or subordinates from giving any effect and/or further effect to the judgment and award dated September 23, 1998 and published on October 27, 1998 being Annexure "h" to this petition; a writ of and/or in the nature of certiorari directing the respondents, theirmenandagentsand/orsubordinatesto certify and transmit all the records before this Hon'ble Court so that Conscionable justicemaybeadministeredbyquashingthe saidjudgmentandawarddatedseptember 23, 1998 being Annexure "h" to this petition; a writ of and/or in the nature of prohibition prohibiting the Respondents and/or their men and agents and/or subordinates from giving any effect or further effect to the Judgment and Award dated September 23, 1998 passed by the learned Judge, 3rd Industrial Tribunal, in case No. VIII-93/95 published vide memo No. 1339 IR/ir-IOL-9/95 dated october 27, 1998 being Annexure "h" to this petition;' ( 3 ) THE learned Judge, 3rd Industrial tribunal by his award dated September 23, 1998 decided the following issues referred by the State Government for adjudication in favour of the respondent No. 5 herein; (1) Whether the termination of service of shri Tapan Ghosh is justified? (2) To what relief, if any, is he entitled? ( 4 ) THE industrial dispute referred for adjudication is between the appellant F. R. P. Moulding Co. (Pvt. Ltd.) and their workman, the respondent No. 5 herein Shri Tapan Ghosh. ( 5 ) THE respondent No. 5 had been an employee of the Company from 1964. He was confirmed on March 23, 1986. According to the appellant herein he tendered resignation on april 4, 1987 and that he never became a workman of the Company thereafter. ( 6 ) THE case of the respondent No. 5 however, is that the Company again reemployed him on June 8, 1987 and thereafter without any notice terminated his services on July 31, 1993. It is alleged by the respondent No. 5 that no enquiry having been held and no compensation having been paid by the Company, the matter was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication as stated above. It is alleged by the respondent No. 5 that no enquiry having been held and no compensation having been paid by the Company, the matter was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication as stated above. ( 7 ) THE Tribunal answered the reference in favour of the workman and held that the termination of the respondent No. 5 was illegal. ( 8 ) THE appellant's case is that the tribunal failed to consider the records placed before it in the proper perspective and failed to appreciate that the respondent No. 5 was only occasionally employed purely on daily basis after his resignation in the year 1987. ( 9 ) THE grounds urged in this appeal on behalf of the appellant are that:- (I) the Writ Court failed to appreciate that in the absence of any pleadings the Tribunal erred in holding that the workman had worked for 240 days without any material-on-record to support such a finding; (II) entrustment of some work by the company occasionally after his resignation did not result in continuity of such entrustment maturing into service under the company; (III) in the absence of any material, the tribunal was not justified in holding that the workman was re-appointed within two months from acceptance of his resignation from service; and that (IV) the Writ Court failed to appreciate that the workman, after the submission of his resignation voluntarily on April 4, 1987 was never reinstated in the Company in the same status and as such the question of the termination of his service again did not arise. ( 10 ) THE learned single Judge in the impugned order refers to the deposition of the witness Shri S. L. Gandhi, Accountant-cum-Finance manager of the Company, examined on behalf of the Company before the tribunal, wherefrom it appears that the said witness admits that gate passes had been issued on behalf of the Company to the respondent No. 5 from December 31, 1986 to August 28, 1992 and that the latter was authorised to act for certain purposes on behalf of the Company. In spite of such admission it appears that no documents were produced by the Company before the tribunal to show that the payments were made to the respondent No. 5 for the specific jobs with which he was allegedly entrusted. In spite of such admission it appears that no documents were produced by the Company before the tribunal to show that the payments were made to the respondent No. 5 for the specific jobs with which he was allegedly entrusted. It is inherently improbable that no record would be maintained by the Company to show the payments made for such specific jobs after the termination in the year 1987. Some gate passes are produced to show on behalf of the Company to prove all such engagements for specific jobs. Exhibit 14 series produced by O. P. W. 1 Shri S. L. Gandhi, Accountant-cum-Finance Manager of the appellant/company, examined on behalf of the appellant/company, are the said gate passes. ( 11 ) IT is stated by Shri S. L. Gandhi, the company's witness, that Exhibit 18 series are the letters of authority in favour of the respondent No. 5 in respect of the jobs assigned to him. It is further stated by the said witness of the Company that the respondent No. 5 was working in the Company after his resignation simply as an outsider worker on payment of service charges after the work was done. In his cross-examination the Company's witness further states that for day to day work and also for particular jobs the workman was deputed by the Company and that the Exhibit 18 series would show such assignment in favour of the respondent No. 5. ( 12 ) ALTHOUGH this witness says that the respondent No. 5 had been given lump sum for the work so done by him no document has been produced to indicate the payment of any lump sum to the workman as alleged. The witness further says that there is no record in the company to show that the respondent No. 5 had worked on behalf of the Company during the period from december 31, 1986 to August 28, 1992. ( 13 ) REFERRING to the Apex Court decision in H. D. Singh v. Reserve Bank of India and Ors. The witness further says that there is no record in the company to show that the respondent No. 5 had worked on behalf of the Company during the period from december 31, 1986 to August 28, 1992. ( 13 ) REFERRING to the Apex Court decision in H. D. Singh v. Reserve Bank of India and Ors. , reported in AIR 1986 SC 1324 : 1985 (4) SCC 201 : 1986-I-LLJ-127 : the learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 submits that the employer, in this case having failed to produce documents to show that the gate passes, Exhibit 14 series were issued in favour of the respondent No. 5 in connection with particular jobs; the case of the workman (respondent No. 5 in this case) of his reinstatement should be taken to be true. ( 14 ) IN such circumstances we find no ground to differ from the finding of the writ court confirming the finding of the Tribunal that the respondent No. 5 after the termination of his services in the year 1987 had worked continuously from June 8, 1987 till the termination without notice on July 31, 1993. ( 15 ) IT appears that the gate passes cover the period from December 31, 1986 to August 28, 1992. This shows that issue of such gate passes in favour of the respondent No. 5 was made when he was admittedly in the service of the Company before his resignation in the year 1987. ( 16 ) IN such circumstances we are of the view that it has been rightly held by the tribunal that even after the resignation the company allowed him w. e. f. June 8, 1987 to continue his services which he was rendering to the Company before his resignation. ( 17 ) IN view of the above we hold that no error has been committed either by the tribunal or, by the learned single Judge in holding that the workman had worked for 240 days and that he was reinstated on June 8, 1987 after his voluntary resignation on April 4, 1987. ( 18 ) ACCORDINGLY, the present appeal is dismissed and the order of the learned single judge dismissing the Writ Application is upheld. ( 19 ) NO order as to costs.