Judgment Rajesh Balia, J.-We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant. 2. The appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 07.01.2004 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the award dated 112.2002 made by the Labour Court, Jodhpur in Labour Dispute No. 94/1999. 3. The appellant has claimed that while he was working with the respondents w.e.f. 1st January, 1988 his services were terminated on 31st August, 1992 in violation of provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-G as he has completed more than 240 days immediately preceding 12 calender months from the date of his termination. He also claimed that other persons have also been re-employed at muster roll after terminating his services on 31st August, 1992. Therefore, Section 25-H has also been violated. 4. The appellant was appointed on muster roll as daily worker. The respondents in reply to the claim clearly accepted that he has worked 17 days initially in December, 1985 then he again came on muster roll in 1988 and had only intermittently worked on muster roll. The respondents have clearly denied that the services of the appellant were ever terminated by them. On the contrary, it was stated that as and when the appellant presented himself on daily wages, he has been assigned duty and in fact, after August, 1992 also he has worked in November and December, 1992. In reply, a detail chart of the appellants work immediately preceding 12 calender months from the alleged date of termination was given. Be that as it may, during the course of cross-examination, the appellant admitted his signatures on Exhibits 1 and 2 before the labour Court to be the signature of his own. The Exhibits 1 and 2 as per the award are the muster roll for November, 1992 and December, 1992. 5. In view of the clear admission of the petitioner that he had worked in November and December, 1992 the appellants claim that his services were terminated in August, 1992 was not sustained and the claim was rejected. 6. The Exhibits 1 and 2 as per the award are the muster roll for November, 1992 and December, 1992. 5. In view of the clear admission of the petitioner that he had worked in November and December, 1992 the appellants claim that his services were terminated in August, 1992 was not sustained and the claim was rejected. 6. In our opinion, when the appellant himself admitted the signatures on the muster rolls of November and December, 1992 after his services allegedly terminated in 1992 on the background of the respondents very specific plea that his services were not terminated and as and when he presented himself , he has been assigned duties having been proved, no case for interference was called for by this Court and this Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal under its extra-ordinary jurisdiction. 7. Hence, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the appeal is hereby dismissed.