( 1 ) HEARD the learned Advocate, Mr. B. Y. Mankad, appearing on behalf of petitioner. ( 2 ) IN SCA No. 14737 of 2006, the petitioner has challenged the award passed by Labour Court, Gandhidham at Kutchhch in Reference No. 329 of 2000 dated 30. 9. 2005, wherein Labour Court has granted reinstatement with continuity of service with 20 days salary for each month for interim period. ( 3 ) IN SCA No. 14755 of 2006, the petitioner has challenged the award passed by Labour Court, Gandhidham at Kuchhch in Reference No. 330 of 2000 dated 19. 9. 2005, wherein, Labour Court has granted the reinstatement with continuity of service and 20 days wages of each month for interim period. ( 4 ) THOUGH in both the petitions different awards are under challenge but, since the common submissions are advanced by learned Advocate, Mr. Mankad, in both the matters, the present petitions are taken into consideration and common order is passed. ( 5 ) LEARNED Advocate, Mr. Mankad, submitted that certain decisions have been cited before the Labour Court but, same have not been considered by Labour Court. He heavily relied upon the decisions of Full Bench of this Court in case of Amreli Municipality in SCA No. 5746 of 1999 and other allied matters which is reported in 2004 (2) GLH 692 . He submitted that Labour Court has not considered the aforesaid decision in case of Amreli Municipality. He submitted that beyond the set up, Municipality has no power to appoint any one even as a daily wager. He also submitted that without sanction of Director of Municipality, no person can be appointed by Municipality. The Municipality is having power to appointed daily wager upto 10% of the permanent staff and, therefore, respondent workman was not appointed by following due process of law but, as and when work was available, same was entrusted to the respondent. He also submitted that respondent workman has not completed 240 days continuous service. He further submitted that no documentary evidence has been produced on record by respondent to prove the fact of completion of 240 days continuous service. He also submitted that when workman has not proved 240 days continuous service, then, Labour Court has committed gross error in granting the benefit under Section 25f of the I. D. Act,1947. He further submitted that no documentary evidence has been produced on record by respondent to prove the fact of completion of 240 days continuous service. He also submitted that when workman has not proved 240 days continuous service, then, Labour Court has committed gross error in granting the benefit under Section 25f of the I. D. Act,1947. He read over the deposition of the workman as well as written statement filed by Municipality before the Labour Court. He submitted that Full Bench of this Court has taken the view that beyond the set up, Labour Court / Industrial Tribunal has no power to regularize the service of such casual labourer or daily wager. In short, his submissions is that Labour Court has committed gross error in granting reinstatement as well as back wages. ( 6 ) I have considered the submissions made by learned Advocate, Mr. Mankad. The decision of Full Bench of this Court in case of Amreli Municipality, as referred above, which has been heavily relied by learned Advocate, Mr. Mankad. This judgment has been read over by learned Advocate, Mr. Mankad before this Court and considering the reference which has been made to the Full Bench of this Court, no question of termination or reinstatement has been examined by Full Bench of this Court. The question which was answered by the Full Bench that whether casual employee / daily wager can be regularized beyond the set up and contrary to the Recruitment / Service Rules but, nowhere it is discussed about termination of daily wager and granting the relief of reinstatement by Labour Court. Therefore, decision of Amreli Municipality is not at all applicable to the facts of this case. The Labour Court has examined the matter on the basis of records produced by respective parties. The statement of claim filed by workman vide Exh. 5. According to workman, averments made in the statement of claim, workman was appointed or engaged in the year 1993 /1994 to 1. 1. 2000 as a labourer and workman was remained in continuous service in the Municipality. In the Municipality, more than 300 workmen were working and receiving the salary of more than Rs. 2000/ -. The service of workman was terminated without any justification and without any reason by the Municipality. At the time of terminating the service, no notice, notice pay and retrenchment compensation were paid to the workman. In the Municipality, more than 300 workmen were working and receiving the salary of more than Rs. 2000/ -. The service of workman was terminated without any justification and without any reason by the Municipality. At the time of terminating the service, no notice, notice pay and retrenchment compensation were paid to the workman. The work was taken in holiday but, no salary was paid. No departmental inquiry was conducted against the workman. Prayer was made to reinstate the workman in original post with continuity of service with back wages. A reply filed by the Municipality vide Exh. 7 denying the averments made in the statement of claim. The contention raised by petitioner that workman had worked intermediately and, therefore, he has no right of appointment / reinstatement and there is no vacant post available with the Municipality and no continuous work was taken from workman. The Municipality cannot employ any daily wager more than 10% of permanent staff without prior permission from State Government and considering various circulars issued by State Government, Municipality is not able to recruit any daily wager and, therefore, the prayer was made to dismiss the reference. Before the Labour Court, workman has produced certain documents which referred in Para. 4. Vide Exh. 18, one Shri Himmatlal on behalf of Municipality was examined. Vide Exh. 25 one affidavit was filed by petitioner. Vide Exh. 28, one witness of petitioner, Shri D. J. Kodrani, an affidavit was filed. The workman was examined vide Exh. 17. On the basis of the documentary evidence as well as considering the pleadings of both the parties, Labour Court has framed the issue which has been answered in Para. 9. The Labour Court has considered the evidence of workman that workman was working in construction department and one Popatbhai was supervisor. Witness Himmatlal was working as Superintendent has categorically admitted the fact in chief-examination that in Municipality, whenever the work of development, safai construction are required by Municipality, at that occasion, according to requirement, daily wagers are appointed by Municipality. The workman had not completed 240 days and there is no post available in set up. But evidence of Shri Himmatlal cannot be considered by the Labour Court because he was not offered for cross-examination. This aspect has been considered by the Labour Court. The workman had not completed 240 days and there is no post available in set up. But evidence of Shri Himmatlal cannot be considered by the Labour Court because he was not offered for cross-examination. This aspect has been considered by the Labour Court. Shri Himmatlal, witness of petitioner, was not present for cross-examination and, therefore, his evidence was not taken into account. Another witness D. J. Kodrani was examined by the petitioner who admitted that he knows the workman and who had not completed 240 days continuous service, but in cross-examination, he admits that presence of the workman was marked in muster card and at the time of making payment, said muster card was taken back from the workman and thereafter, preparing the pay bill the wages was paid to the workman. Total permanent staff is 272 in set up including safai kamdar. The seniority list is maintained by Municipality of daily wager and as and when the post is sanctioned in set up, according to seniority list of daily wager, they are absorbed by the Municipality. It is also admitted by this witness that no appointment order in writing given to the daily wager by the Municipality. The muster card and pay register of workman has not been seen by him because that record is not available, as same has been destroyed in the earthquake. After the termination of workman, if the work was available, no daily wagers were appointed. Therefore, Labour Court has considered that evidence of Shri Dilipbhai is contrary to the written statement filed by the Municipality. That aspect has been discussed in the same paragraph pointing out the contradiction between the evidence of Shri Dilipbhai and reply submitted by Municipality. The Labour Court has come to conclusion that reply was filed by Municipality without considering the record. Though record was not available because of earthquake, even then statement was made that this reply was prepared on the basis of record. Therefore, Municipality was not having documentary evidence that on which date the workman was appointed or engaged as a daily wager and on which date, the service was terminated. The admission of Shri Dilipbhai that Municipality maintaining the seniority list of daily wagers even though seniority list of daily wagers was not produced by Municipality before the Labour Court. Therefore, Municipality was not having documentary evidence that on which date the workman was appointed or engaged as a daily wager and on which date, the service was terminated. The admission of Shri Dilipbhai that Municipality maintaining the seniority list of daily wagers even though seniority list of daily wagers was not produced by Municipality before the Labour Court. How many posts are vacant in set up is also not produced before the Labour Court. One statement was made by Shri Dilipbhai that after the earthquake, workload was increased and many daily wagers were engaged by Municipality but, at that occasion, Municipality has not called the respondent workman for the work. The workman has informed to the petitioner by notice and reply was given by Municipality by Exh. 15. Labour Court has considered the reply of Municipality which impliedly made clear that Municipality is not prepared to engage respondent workman in service. Therefore, in this back ground and considering the evidence on record, the Labour Court has come to conclusion that workman had completed 240 days continuous service as per oral evidence of the workman; no documentary evidence was given by petitioner to workman about his engagement as a daily wager. The admission of Shri Dilipbhai as a witness of petitioner specifically made clear that muster card which was given to the daily wager was taken back by Municipality for preparing the wages and that muster card was not given back to the daily wager. Meaning thereby that no documentary evidence available with the workman for which he can produce before the Labour Court to satisfy the requirements of 240 days continuous service. Therefore, Labour Court has considered these two aspects that Municipality having a seniority list of daily wager where date of appointment is there and date of termination must be there but, no such seniority list was produced by the petitioner before the Labour Court. After earthquake, workload was increased and many daily wagers were engaged as per evidence of Shri Dilipbhai. However, this workman was not called by petitioner Municipality, therefore, Section 25f / 25h of the I. D. Act,1947 has been violated by Municipality. After earthquake, workload was increased and many daily wagers were engaged as per evidence of Shri Dilipbhai. However, this workman was not called by petitioner Municipality, therefore, Section 25f / 25h of the I. D. Act,1947 has been violated by Municipality. ( 7 ) IN view of these facts, on two grounds termination has been set aside by Labour Court; one is that violation of Section 25f of I. D. Act,1947 and second is violation of mandatory provision of Section 25h of I. D. Act,1947. On both the grounds, Municipality has violated mandatory provisions, therefore, Labour Court has granted reinstatement with continuity of service and no gainful employment was proved by petitioner against the evidence of workman that he remained unemployed during the interim period. Therefore, according to daily wage of 20 days, back wages of interim period has been granted. The contention raised by learned Advocate, Mr. Mankad, that workman had not completed 240 days continuous service and not produced sufficient evidence before the Labour Court by the workman but, one fact is admitted by the witness Dilipbhai that after the earthquake, workload was increased and number of daily wagers were engaged by Municipality, at that occasion, the workman was not called upon by Municipality as a daily wager and has violated the provisions of Section 25h of I. D. Act,1947. For violation of Section 25h of I. D. Act,1947, it is not necessary for the workman to satisfy the requirement under Section 25b of I. D. Act,1947. Meaning thereby that completion of 240 days is not at all necessary. Once the termination covered by definition of retrenchment under Section 2 (oo), then, Section 25h is violated by Municipality, therefore, the Labour Court has granted reinstatement in favour of workman. ( 8 ) THE Apex Court has considered this situation when workman was not having any documentary evidence to prove completion of 240 days continuous service. The Apex Court has taken care to discuss such situation in public body and also considered that when in such circumstances, workman was not having any documentary evidence to prove 240 days continuous service, then, his oral evidence is enough to prove 240 days continuous service. Initial burden is upon the workman to prove continuous service of 240 days. The Apex Court has taken care to discuss such situation in public body and also considered that when in such circumstances, workman was not having any documentary evidence to prove 240 days continuous service, then, his oral evidence is enough to prove 240 days continuous service. Initial burden is upon the workman to prove continuous service of 240 days. A moment workman deposed before the Labour Court that he was remained in continuous service of 240 days, then, the burden is shifted upon the employer to disprove these facts by producing necessary documentary evidence and oral evidence. Two facts are there that muster card was taken back for calculating the wages, not returned to the workman as per evidence of Shri Dilipbhai, witness of petitioner and no other documents have been given, namely, appointment order and termination order, therefore, considering these facts, the view taken by the Apex Court in case of R. M. Yellati v. Assistant Executive Engineer, reported in AIR 2006 SC 355. The relevant observations are in Para. 17, 18 and 19, which are quoted as under :"17. Analyzing the above decisions of this court, it is clear that the provisions of the Evidence Act in terms do not apply to the proceedings under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, applying general principles and on reading the aforestated judgments, we find that this court has repeatedly taken the view that the burden of proof is on the claimant to show that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. This burden is discharged only upon the workman stepping in the witness box. This burden is discharged upon the workman adducing cogent evidence, both oral and documentary. In cases of termination of services of daily waged earner, there will be no letter of appointment or termination. There will also be no receipt or proof of payment. Thus in most cases, the workman (claimant) can only call upon the employer to produce before the court the nominal muster roll for the given period, the letter of appointment or termination, if any, the wage register, the attendance register etc. Drawing of adverse inference ultimately would depend thereafter on facts of each case. Thus in most cases, the workman (claimant) can only call upon the employer to produce before the court the nominal muster roll for the given period, the letter of appointment or termination, if any, the wage register, the attendance register etc. Drawing of adverse inference ultimately would depend thereafter on facts of each case. The above decisions however make it clear that mere affidavits or self-serving statements made by the claimant/workman will not suffice in the matter of discharge of the burden placed by law on the workman to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. The above judgments further lay down that mere non-production of muster rolls per se without any plea of suppression by the claimant workman will not be the ground for the tribunal to draw an adverse inference against the management. Lastly, the above judgments lay down the basic principle, namely, that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution will not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the labour court unless they are perverse. This exercise will depend upon facts of each case. 18. Now applying the above decision to the facts of the present case, we find that the workman herein had stepped in the witness box. He had called upon the management to produce the nominal muster rolls for the period commencing from 22. 11. 1988 to 20. 6. 1994. This period is the period borne out by the certificate (Ex. W1) issued by the former Asstt. Executive Engineer. The evidence in rebuttal from the side of the management needs to be noticed. The management produced five nominal muster rolls (NMRs), out of which 3 NMRs, Ex. M1, Ex. M2 and Ex. M3, did not even relate to the concerned period. The relevant NMRs produced by the management were Ex. M4 and Ex. M5, which indicated that the workmen had worked for 43 days during the period 21. 1. 1994 to 20. 2. 1994 and 21. 3. 1994 to 20. 4. 1994 respectively. There is no explanation from the side of the management as to why for the remaining period the nominal muster rolls were not produced. The labour court has rightly held that there is nothing to disbelieve the certificate (Ex. W1 ). The High Court in its impugned judgment has not given reasons for discarding the said certificate. 4. 1994 respectively. There is no explanation from the side of the management as to why for the remaining period the nominal muster rolls were not produced. The labour court has rightly held that there is nothing to disbelieve the certificate (Ex. W1 ). The High Court in its impugned judgment has not given reasons for discarding the said certificate. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the division bench of the High Court ought not to have interfered with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the labour court and confirmed by the learned single judge vide order dated 7. 6. 2000 in writ petition no. 17636 of 2000. This is not, therefore, a case where the allegations of the workman are founded merely on an affidavit. He has produced cogent evidence in support of his case. The workman was working in SD-1, Athani and Ex. W1 was issued by the former Asstt. Executive Engineer, Hipparagi Dam Construction Division No. 1, Athani-591304. In the present case, the defence of the management was that although Ex. W1 refers to the period 22. 11. 1988 to 20. 6. 1994, the workman had not worked as a daily wager on all days during that period. If so, the management was duty bound to produce before the labour court the nominal muster rolls for the relevant period, particularly when it was summoned to do so. We are not placing this judgment on the shifting of the burden. We are not placing this case on drawing of adverse inference. In the present case, we are of the view that the workman had stepped in the witness box and his case that he had worked for 240 days in a given year was supported by the certificate (Ex. W1 ). In the circumstances, the division bench of the High Court had erred in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact. 19. Before concluding, we would like to make an observation with regard to cases concerning retrenchment/termination of services of daily waged earners, particularly those who are appointed to work in Government departments. Daily waged earners are not regular employees. They are not given letters of appointments. They are not given letters of termination. They are not given any written document which they could produce as proof of receipt of wages. Their muster rolls are maintained in loose sheets. Daily waged earners are not regular employees. They are not given letters of appointments. They are not given letters of termination. They are not given any written document which they could produce as proof of receipt of wages. Their muster rolls are maintained in loose sheets. Even in cases, where registers are maintained by the Government departments, the officers/clerks making entries do not put their signatures. Even where signatures of clerks appear, the entries are not countersigned or certified by the appointing authorities. In such cases, we are of the view that the State Governments should take steps to maintain proper records of the services rendered by the daily wagers; that these records should be signed by the competent designated officers and that at the time of termination, the concerned designated officers should give certificates of the number of days which the labourer/daily wager has worked. This system will obviate litigations and pecuniary liability for the Government. " ( 9 ) THE petitioner has not produced relevant record, though raised objection against completion of 240 days of workman. When petitioner has not produced the documents on the ground that they were not available, in such circumstances, the Labour Court has rightly drawn adverse inference while believing the oral evidence of workman. [see : Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. State of UP and others, reported in (2003) 3 SCC 528 ]. ( 10 ) SECTION 25h is being an independent Section, nothing to do with Section 25f / 25b of I. D. Act,1947, therefore, in case when Section 25h is violated, it is not necessary for the workman to prove that he had completed 240 days continuous service. Therefore, on both the grounds, according to my opinion, Labour Court has rightly considered the evidence which were on record. It is not a perverse finding or contrary to record. The reasons given by the Labour Court are on the basis of record and considering the fact that workman was not having any documentary evidence to prove 240 days continuous service and petitioner having the muster card as well as seniority list of daily wager, but none of the documents was produced by petitioner before the Labour Court, therefore, according to my opinion, Labour Court has not committed any error which require any interference by this Court while exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 11 ) THIS Court having very limited jurisdiction to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court cannot reappreciate the evidence which was appreciated by the Labour Court. (See : Laxmikant Revachand Bhojwani and Anr. v. Mohansing Pardeshi, (1995) 6 SCC 576 , Ouseph Mathai and Ors. v. Abdul Khadir, (2002) 1 SCC 319 and Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal (2002) 1 SCC 100 ). In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the present petitions. Hence, present petitions are dismissed.