JUDGMENT : Akil Kureshi, J. In the present petition, the petitioner-employer has challenged the legality of an award dated 5th May, 2005 passed by the Labour Court, Kalol. BY the impugned award, the Labour Court was pleased to allow partially the reference of the respondent-workman. He was directed to be reinstated in service with 50% back wages. The respondent has challenged his alleged termination dated 03-03-1982 by the petitioner-employer. Before the Labour Court the case of the petitioner was that the workman was irregular in discharge of his duties. He was engaged only as a daily wager. That from 6-11-1981 he abstained from duty without leave or without any prior intimation. On 28-11-1981 the employer issued notice and called for his explanation. He still did not resume duty nor offered his explanation. Another notice was issued on 2-2-1982. The explanation of the workman was not found satisfactory. His name was therefore, struck down from the Muster Roll. In short the case of the petitioner was that the respondent had voluntarily abandoned the service. 2. The Labour Court observed that without giving an opportunity to the workman, his name was deleted from the Muster Roll. No inquiry was conducted. No notice or notice pay was also given to him. The Labour Court further observed that the employer did not produce Muster Rolls from 1977 to 1981 but produced Attendance Register for the period between November 1981 to March 1982. It was observed that by producing Attendance Register or pay register, it was not demonstrated by the employer that the workman had not worked for more than 240 days. It was therefore, concluded that he had worked continuously from 1977 to 1981. On the basis of these conclusions, the Labour Court found that the petitioner had acted illegally and workman was entitled to be reinstated in service. The Labour Court also provided for 50% back-wages. 3. In my view, Labour Court committed error in allowing the reference. The workman who was engaged as daily wager was issued show cause notice for his sudden absence from the duty, despite which he did not resume his duties. The Labour Court therefore, was not correct in observing that no opportunity was given to the workman. 3. In my view, Labour Court committed error in allowing the reference. The workman who was engaged as daily wager was issued show cause notice for his sudden absence from the duty, despite which he did not resume his duties. The Labour Court therefore, was not correct in observing that no opportunity was given to the workman. With respect to the question of 240 days also, it was primarily the duty of the workman to lead evidence to prove that he had worked for 240 days during the 12 calendar months preceding his termination. The fact that petitioner did not produce Muster Roll or Attendance Register would not be a factor to conclude that the workman had succeeded in establishing that he had worked for 240 days especially when there was no order passed by the Labour Court calling upon the employer to produce such documents. On both these counts, therefore, the award of the Labour Court cannot be sustained, therefore, same is quashed. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs. Petition Allowed.