R. B. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) IN the writ petition prayer has been made to quash the award dated June 27, 1992 (Annexure-6) and declare the termination dated september 8, 1986 as illegal and to treat the petitioner in continuous service and to make full payment with back wages and other benefits admissible under law since September 8, 1986. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts, necessary for adjudication of the case are that the Deputy labour Commission, U. P. , Allahabad in exercise of his power vested under Notification no. 2512 (HI)/36-2-155 (SM)/90 dated August 29, 1990 has referred the following dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 called act on April 4, 1991 "whether the termination of workman Sri Mansoor Ahmad from September 8, 1986 by the employer is legally valid and if not then the details of benefit/relief, which he is entitled to. " ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner he was appointed on the permanent post of workman and continued in service till September 8, 1986 in Madhyamik Siksha Parishad when his service was terminated without any charge or any departmental enquiry and without notice and without making payment of one months pay in lieu thereof. In the Adjudication Case no. 46 of 1991 before the Labour Court the representatives of the workman has to elaborate the meaning of term retrenchment and continuous service and the petitioner has emphasised that even if the concerned workman was not legally appointed, however, when he has worked for more than 240 days he is entitled to benefit of the provisions of Section 6-N of the Act, 1947. ( 4 ) THE representative of Madhyamik shiksha Parishad has tried to refute that the workman has not worked for 240 days in a calendar year, therefore, he was not entitled to the reliefs claimed. It was also asserted that the workman was not appointed to any post, therefore, there is no question of reinstating him. ( 4 ) THE representative of Madhyamik shiksha Parishad has tried to refute that the workman has not worked for 240 days in a calendar year, therefore, he was not entitled to the reliefs claimed. It was also asserted that the workman was not appointed to any post, therefore, there is no question of reinstating him. It has also been noticed by the Labour court that the respondent Parishad has also not filed the acquittance roll of payment, therefore, an inference against the Parishad might have been drawn, however, since the petitioner was said to be engaged on June 1, 1977 and alleged to be in service till September 8, 1986 for which no documentary evidence or proof has been filed. ( 5 ) SECTION 6-N of the U. P. Industrial disputes Act, 1947 read as below:"6-N. No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under employer shall be retrenched by that employer, until: (a) the workman has been given one months notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages, for period of the notice: provided that no such notice shall be necessary if the retrenchment is under an agreement which specifies the date for the termination of service. (B) the workman has been paid at the time of retrenchment compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days average pay for every completed year of service or any part thereof in excess of six months, and (C) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the State Government. ( 6 ) IN S. N. Shukla and others v. Vice chancellor of Allahabad University and others, this High Court 1986 UPLBEC 667 (DB) has indicated as to how 240 days would be completed in the case of retrenchment and it has been emphasised that 240 days within a period of 12 months immediately before preceding the date of termination would be relevant consideration. In the present case the documentary evidence filed on behalf of the workman does not indicate that the workman had been in service in the year 1985 and 1986. In the present case the documentary evidence filed on behalf of the workman does not indicate that the workman had been in service in the year 1985 and 1986. With a view to invoke the provisions of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 it was incumbent upon the workman to have proved beyond shadow of doubt that he had been in service on the date when the alleged termination took place. From the evidence on the record it may be inferred that the concerned workman might have been in service of the employer for several years i. e. more than 240 days but that will not entitle the workman to seek the reliefs claimed unless he proves that he had been in service on the date of termination and had completed 240 days within a year preceding the date of termination. ( 7 ) THE petitioner-workman has failed to adduce evidence to prove his claim that he worked 240 days in a calendar year and had been in service on the date of alleged termination of service, therefore, as required, the provisions of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not attracted to the claim of the concerned workman in the present case. ( 8 ) THE provisions of Section 6-P of the u. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is given below:"where any workman in an industrial establishment who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workman in that establishment in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman. " ( 9 ) KEEPING in view the above provisions the petitioner has contended that many of his juniors have been made permanent, whereas, he has been left, however, in support of above contentions the workman has not filed any documentary evidence with regard to the appointment in respect of persons allegedly junior to him. It is also not clear as to when the alleged junior persons were made permanent. It is also not clear as to when the alleged junior persons were made permanent. The oral statement of the workman was made with a view to attract the provisions of Section 6-P of the Act without any specific plea or the documentary evidence regarding the alleged juniors, therefore, the oral statements of the petitioner cannot be accepted regarding the claim of workman concerned, for getting benefit of Section 6-P of the Act. ( 10 ) SINCE the workman has failed to establish his case that he had been in service in the year 1985-1986, therefore, no question of termination of his services on September 8, 1986 was found to have arisen and the concerned workman was rightly found not to be entitled to any relief and adjudication of case no. 46 of 1996 was set aside against the petitioner. ( 11 ) THE counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. In para 4 of the counter affidavit the respondent has indicated that the petitioner was engaged as daily wager on day to day basis according to necessity and that there being no post, he was not entitled to be continued any further. Contrary to it in the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has reiterated the contents made in para 3 to the writ petition. ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on Himanshu Kumar vidyarthi and others v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1997 SC 3657 : 1997 (4) SCC 391 : 1998-II-LLJ-15 where the Court has held:"admittedly they were not appointed to the posts in accordance with the rules but were engaged on the basis of need of the work. They are temporary employees working on daily wages. Under these circumstances, their disengagement from service cannot be construed to be a retrenchment under the industrial Disputes Act. The concept of "retrenchment," therefore, cannot be stretched to such an extent as to cover these employees. Since they are only daily-wage employees and have no right to the posts, their disengagement is not arbitrary. " ( 13 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on Channey Lal and others v. Director, Malaria Research Centre, New delhi and another, 1999 (82 ) FLR 76 wherein it was held that the provision of Article 311 does not apply in the case of daily wager who has been treated not to hold any civil post. " ( 13 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on Channey Lal and others v. Director, Malaria Research Centre, New delhi and another, 1999 (82 ) FLR 76 wherein it was held that the provision of Article 311 does not apply in the case of daily wager who has been treated not to hold any civil post. Admittedly, they are not members of any civil service. Therefore, workman employed on a daily wage basis in project does not hold a civil post under the State. Unless the persons hold a post, there is no question of distinction of temporary or permanent. ( 14 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance on State of U. P. v. Labour Court, Haldwani and others, 1999 (81)flr 319 wherein it was held that the engagement of daily wager in the Irrigation department came to an end every evening and the refusal to employ him from a particular day, such disengagement was not under the provision of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes act. "employment to Government service in the irrigation Department is regulated by statutory rules. Patently, the respondent No. 2 was not employed in accordance with the rules. For engaging a person casually on day to day basis the statutory rules are not required to be followed under which the posts have to be advertised and only the best from the market have to be picked up keeping in view reservation provided for certain classes. Thus, every eligible person has an opportunity to participate in the recruitment process. This is not so in the case of daily wager m whose case even regulations regarding age, medical fitness, character etc. are not observed. Therefore, daily and casual workers who are engaged in disregard of all rules cannot be allowed to enter Government service through the back door and the Labour Court cannot be allowed to be used as a legal means for such back door entry. The anomalous situation that the impugned award creates can be seen from the fact that till before his alleged retrenchment the respondent No. 2 was on engagement from day to day. The anomalous situation that the impugned award creates can be seen from the fact that till before his alleged retrenchment the respondent No. 2 was on engagement from day to day. The impugned award makes him a permanent employee with the necessary consequence that he would have to be paid salary for all the 365 days as a regular employee and the other benefits of a regular employment can also not be denied to him. Thus, the award put him in a much better position than he was before the alleged retrenchment. Such a result is not conceived. " ( 15 ) I have gone through the contents and pleading in the records. I find that the petitioner a daily worker deployed in exigency not appointed against any post, has not adduced documentary evidence for his claim that he had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and has also not discharged the burden of proving that he had been in deployment preceding his disengagement without naming those allegedly juniors to him, therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit of 6-N as well as 6-P of Act. ( 16 ) IN the light of the above observations i do not find any substance in the contentions of the petitioner, therefore this Court is not inclined to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is dismissed accordingly. .