SHARAD D. DAVE, J. ( 1 ) THE present Special Civil Application No. 7137 of 1996 has been filed by the petitioner -Baroda Municipal Corporation under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Award passed by the Labour Court, Baroda in Reference (LCV) No. 126 of 1992 dtd. 15/5/1996 whereby the Labour Court directed the petitioner Corporation to reinstate the respondent on his original post with continuity of service and with 20% back wages within 30 days from the date of publication of the Award and also directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 100/- to the respondent as cost of the Reference. The Labour Court further directed the petitioner Corporation to pay interest at the rate of 18% on the back wages from 1/6/1996, if the backwages is not paid by petitioner as aforesaid. ( 2 ) THIS Court (Coram : J. N. Bhatt, J.) while passing order dtd. 2/11/1996, issued Notice for admission making it returnable on 4th December, 1996 and also granted ad-interim relief in terms of para 11 (C) subject to payment of Rs. 2000/- towards the expenses to the respondent. ( 3 ) THEREAFTER, this Court (Coram : M. R. Calla, J.) vide order dtd. 5/5/1997 admitted the petition and stayed the impugned award subject to provisions of Sec. 17 (B) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. ( 4 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the respective parties. ( 5 ) MR. PRANAV G. Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation has mainly argued that the respondent was working as Daily Wager Helper on temporary ground in the petitioner corporation and he had worked for 134 days during the period between October 1974 and May, 1975, and thereafter, the respondent on his own stopped to resume his duty, for which he has drawn attention of this court to the Further Affidavit by the petitioner corporation through Asst. Municipal Commissioner sworn on 3/10/1996 pursuant to the order of this Court. He further argued that initially in the petition through inadvertence it was stated that the respondent has worked from 4th June, 1974 to 7th May, 1975. He has further argued that thereafter, after about 17 years, the Reference was filed in the Labour Court and prayed for reinstatement. He has further argued that in the Reference, the respondent workman has admitted that he was joined the services as Daily Wager Helper. He has further argued that thereafter, after about 17 years, the Reference was filed in the Labour Court and prayed for reinstatement. He has further argued that in the Reference, the respondent workman has admitted that he was joined the services as Daily Wager Helper. He has further argued that the respondent has not completed service for 240 in the petitioner Corporation. it is submitted that the petitioner has worked for 134 days, during the period between October, 1974 to May, 1975, as stated in the aforesaid affidavit. He further argued that the person who worked for less than 240 days in the petitioner corporation, is not entitled for employment in the petitioner corporation. He further argued that the respondent was engaged as a daily wager helper on temporary basis for Gas Connection Project and after the completion of the said project, the persons engaged for the said project work automatically comes to an end and for that, no notice is required to be issued by the petitioner to the respondent, however, the Labour Court has passed the impugned Award directing petitioner Corporation to reinstate the respondent with 20% back wages etc. , which is illegal and hence the same is required to be quashed and set aside. 5. 1. Mr. Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation has placed reliance in the case of Municipal Corporation, Faridabad vs. Siri Niwas, reported in (2004) 7 S. C. C. page 195. Head-Notes of the said decision reads as follows:- Head Note A. Labour Law - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Ss. 25 (F) and 25-N r/w. S. 25-B and S. 114 III. (g), Evidence Act - Applicability - Non-production of evidence by employer - Adverse inference when may be drawn - Held, presumption as to adverse interference is always optional and one of the factors which is required to be taken into consideration is the back ground of the facts involved in the lis - Notwithstanding the intentional non-production of evidence, other circumstances may be found to be justifiable on some reasonable grounds - Moreover, a party in order to get the benefit of S. 114 III. (g), Evidence Act must place some evidence in support of his case - Here the respondent had failed to lead any evidence whatsoever in support of his contention that he had complied with the requirement of S. 25 (B) - Hence, the tribunal was well within its Jurisdiction in exercising its discretion not to draw any evidence interference against the appellant employer - Hence reversal of its order by the High Court was unsustainable. Head Note-B. Constitution of India - Art. 226 - Industrial Tribunal of discretionary jurisdiction interference with, not justified unless the same is found to be illegal or irrational - On facts, no reason assigned by High Court as to whey the said exercise of discretion by the Tribunal was bad in law, and hence its order was unsustainable. Head Note-C. Labour Law - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 S. 11 - Procedure - Applicability of Evidence Act, 1972 Held, though not per se applicable, the general principles of the said Act are applicable to an industrial adjudication - It is imperative however that the principles of natural justice be complied with Evidence Act, 1972 - Preamble. Head Note-D. Labour Law - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Ss. 25 (F) and 25-N r/w S. 25-B - Burden of proof Held, was on the workman to show that he had worked continuously for 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment - On facts, the workman had adduced no evidence whatsoever in this regard before the Tribunal or High Court, apart from examining himself, which was not enough - Material that workman could have been placed before the Tribunal in this regard pointed out - Hence, the High Court committed a manifest error in reinstating the workman only on the basis of adverse inference drawn against the employer for not producing the muster rolls. 5. 2. Mr. Desai has also placed reliance on the decision in the case of S. T. Hadimani Vs. State of Karnataka and anr. reported in (2002) 3 S. C. C. 25. 5. 2. Mr. Desai has also placed reliance on the decision in the case of S. T. Hadimani Vs. State of Karnataka and anr. reported in (2002) 3 S. C. C. 25. Head-Note of the said decision reads as follows;"labour Law - Retrenchment - Compensation Entitlement to, under Sec. 25-F ID Act Completion of requisite length of continuous service - Onus and manner of proof - Where the workmans claim that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding his termination was denied by the employer, held, it was for the claimant to lead evidence to that effect Further held, workmans affidavit was not sufficient evidence for that purpose - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Ss. 25-F and 25-B. " ( 6 ) MR. R. D. Raval, learned counsel for the respondent workman has mainly argued that it is not true that the respondent had approached the Labour Court after a period of 17 years, in fact, the service of the respondent was terminated in the year 1989 and the Reference was filed in 1992 and the Labour Court has considered the delay of three years while passing the impugned Award and has awarded only 20% back wages. He has further argued that the petitioner has terminated the service of the respondent illegally, arbitrarily, without following the mandatory procedure, without initiating any departmental inquiry and without issuing any notice or remuneration, though the respondent had worked for more than 240 days in the petitioner Corporation. He has further argued that the petitioner blows hot and cold at the same time, as at the one hand, the petitioner argues that the respondent had stopped to report for duty and on the other hand, it is argued that the Gas Project work was over and hence services of all the concerned employees had come to an end. He has further argued that the petitioner has not lead any evidence in support of its case and controverting the contentions of the respondent workman. He also argued that juniors to the respondent have been made permanent by the petitioner Corporation. He has further argued that the petitioner has not lead any evidence in support of its case and controverting the contentions of the respondent workman. He also argued that juniors to the respondent have been made permanent by the petitioner Corporation. He has further argued that the Labour Court has passed the award considering the evidence on cord and considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Labour Court has merely awarded 20% backwages instead of full back wages, and the Award is just, legal and proper and no error is committed by the Labour Court while passing the Award. He has further argued that in the present petition the petitioner has challenged the Award passed by the Labour Court and therefore, this petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under Article 227 this Court has limited jurisdiction. The Labour Court has passed the Award considering the evidence on record and has not committed any error, and this Court in the petition under Article 227 of the cannot re-appreciate the evidence, even if two views are possible. Consequently, he has argued that that the impugned Award is just, legal and proper and hence, this Court may not interfered with the impugned Award. 6. 1. Lastly, Mr. Raval, learned counsel for the respondent workman has relied on the decision in the case of Range Forest Officer Vs. S. T. Hadimani, reported in A. I. R. 2002 S. C. 33, wherein the Apex Court has held that "the power conferred on the High Court under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to advance justice and not to thwart it. The very purpose of such constitutional powers being conferred on the High Courts is that no man should be subjected to injustice by violating the law. The look out of the High Court is, therefore, not merely to pick out any error of law through an academic angle but to see whether injustice has resulted on account of any erroneous interpretation of law. If justice became the by product of an erroneous view of law the High Court is not expected to erase such justice in the name of correcting the error of law. If justice became the by product of an erroneous view of law the High Court is not expected to erase such justice in the name of correcting the error of law. " ( 7 ) CONSIDERING the evidence on record, more particularly the impugned Award, it is clear that the respondent workman has produced documentary as well as oral evidence on the record of the Labour Court, but the petitioner Corporation has not produced any evidence before the Labour Court either oral or documentary. The respondent workman in his oral evidence has deposited that he had joined the service in the year 1974 and his service was terminated in the year 1989 and denied the fact in his cross examination that he had stopped to resume his duty on his own. Further, the respondent workman has produced Certificate at Ex. 13/1 dtd. 23/6/1975 before the Labour Court certifying that the respondent workman has worked from 4/6/1974 to 12/5/1975 as Helper, meaning thereby the respondent workman has worked for more than 240 days in the preceding year. Against the the aforesaid evidence, as produced by the respondent workman, the petitioner Corporation has not produced any evidence before the Labour Court, controverting the evidence produced by the respondent workman before the Labour Court. ( 8 ) KEEPING in mind the evidence produced by the respondent workman and the fact that the petitioner has not produced any evidence oral as well as documentary controverting the case of the respondent workman, the contention of the petitioner corporation that the petitioner had discontinued to resume his duty, petitioner had not worked for 240 days and had preferred the Reference after a period of 17 years, cannot be accepted, as the same is against the evidence on record. Further, it is specific finding of the Labour Court that the petitioner has terminated the service of the respondent illegally and though the respondent approached the petitioner for work, the petitioner has not provided work to the respondent. Further, the petitioner Corporation has not produced any evidence either orally or documentary before the Labour Court and therefore, the case of the petitioner that the respondent was appointed for Gas Project cannot be accepted. Further, the petitioner Corporation has not produced any evidence either orally or documentary before the Labour Court and therefore, the case of the petitioner that the respondent was appointed for Gas Project cannot be accepted. When the petitioner has not produced any evidence, and the respondent has produced oral as well as documentary evidence including the Certificate issued by the petitioner Corporation itself showing that the respondent has worked for more than 240 days, there is no reason for not believing the case of the respondent workman. ( 9 ) IN my view, considering the non-production of evidence by the petitioner employer and production of oral and documentary evidence in support of his case, including the certificate issued by the petitioner Corporation certifying that the respondent has worked for more than 240 days, the Labour Court has rightly drawn adverse inference in the back ground of the facts and considering the fact that sufficient evidence has been produced by the respondent workman in support of his case. The said inference drawn by the Labour Court is just, legal and well within its jurisdiction in exercising its discretion, and the same is not illegal or irrational and while doing so, the Labour Court has not committed any error and therefore, no interference is called for. ( 10 ) SO far as the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation are concerned, I am in total agreement with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the said decisions. So far as the decision in the case of Municipal Corporation, Faridabad (Supra) vs. Siri Niwas, reported in (2004) 8 SCC 195 , relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the same is helpful to the respondent workman instead of petitioner, as the petitioner has not produced any evidence against the case, oral evidence and documentary evidence lead by the respondent workman in his support of his case and the Labour Court has passed award on the basis of the evidence on record without any error. Likewise, decision in the case of Range Forest Officer Vs. Likewise, decision in the case of Range Forest Officer Vs. S. T. Hadimani, reported in (2002) 3 SCC 25 is also helpful to the respondent instead of the petitioner, as the respondent has lead sufficient evidence oral as well as documentary proving that the respondent has worked for more than 240 days in the preceding year and his service has been illegally terminated. Over and above, this Court has limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and hence also this petition is required to be rejected in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 11 ) IN the result, this petition stands rejected. Rule discharged. Interim relief stands vacated. In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to comply with the Award of the Labour Court forthwith. ( 12 ) IN view of the disposal of main petition being Special Civil Application No. 7137 of 1996, Civil Application No. 9128 of 2002 does not survive and the same stands disposed of accordingly. .