ORDER A.K. Shrivastava, J. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the validity of impugned order Annexure P/1 dated 27-11-2000 whereby the appeal filed by respondent No. 1 has been allowed and he has been directed to be reinstated. Sans unnecessary details the facts be in a narrow compass. Suffice it to state that respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the employee') filed an application under sections 31(3), 61 and 62 of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act before the Labour Court challenging the action of the petitioners terminating his services by an oral order. According to employee, his services were terminated by an oral order dated 28-11-1990. The contention of employee before the Labour Court was that since he had served continuously for more than 240 days in a calendar year, therefore the action of employer terminating his services amounts to illegal retrenchment since the provisions of section 25-F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947') were not complied with. The averments made by the employee in his application were refuted by the petitioners by filing written statement. The Labour Court on the basis of pleadings framed necessary issues. The parties thereafter led their evidence and Labour Court after close scrutiny of the evidence came to hold that since the workman has not worked more than 240 days continuously in a calendar year, therefore, the action of employer terminating his services does not amount to illegal retrenchment. Eventually, the application filed under the Act by the employee was dismissed by the Labour Court. The order of Labour Court dated 15-12-1998 has been placed on record as Annexure P/2. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Labour Court, the employee knocked the door of the Industrial Court by filing the appeal u/s 65 of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960. The Industrial Court by the impugned order Annexure P/1 has allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of the Labour Court and directed the employer to reinstate the employee. Hence, this petition. It has been vehemently argued by Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the approach of the Industrial Court allowing the appeal of the employee is extraneous to the law. Hence, this petition. It has been vehemently argued by Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the approach of the Industrial Court allowing the appeal of the employee is extraneous to the law. According to Learned Counsel, the law is well settled and by throwing a stone which did not fell in the pond, the employee unsuccessfully tried to create ripples in the water by the said stone. According to Learned Counsel, the Industrial Court wrongly held that the burden of proof to prove the fact that the employee had not worked continuously for more than 240 days in a calendar year is on the employer. According to Learned Counsel, indeed, it was for the employee to prove this fact that he had worked continuously for more than 240 days in a calendar year in order to invoke the provisions of section 25-F and 25G of the Act of 1947. To bolster his submission, he has placed reliance on three decisions of the Supreme Court, they are Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, , Municipal Corporation, Faridabad Vs. Siri Niwas, , M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Hariram etc., . Refuting the aforesaid submissions of Learned Counsel for the petitioner, it has been submitted by learned senior counsel for respondent No. 1 that since it has been proved from the record that the employee has worked for more than 240 days continuously in a calendar year, therefore the order of the Industrial Court cannot be said to be erroneous. According to learned senior counsel this is not a fit case where this Court should exercise writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and this petition be dismissed. After having heard Learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed in part. According to learned senior counsel this is not a fit case where this Court should exercise writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and this petition be dismissed. After having heard Learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed in part. On bare perusal of the impugned order passed by the Industrial Court, it is gathered that the burden of proof that employee had worked continuously for more than 240 days in a calendar year has been shifted on the shoulder of the employer and thereafter the finding has been arrived at that since the employer has not proved that the employee did not work continuously for more than 240 days in a calendar year and therefore his termination amounts to illegal retrenchment since it is in contravention to the provisions of section 25-F and 25G of the Act of 1947. I am of the view that the approach of the Industrial Court holding so is extraneous to the law. In that regard it would be buttress to place reliance on the decisions Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. (supra), Shri Niwas (supra) and Hariram (supra). Looking to the totality of facts and circumstances and judging from all the angles, since it has been held that the burden of proof that the employee did not work continuously for more than 240 days in a calendar year has been casted on the shoulder of the employer by the Industrial Court the order passed by it cannot be allowed to remain stand and I have no option except to quash the same. The Industrial Court is hereby directed to re-decide the appeal of the employee. Ex-consequent, this petition succeeds in part to the extent indicated hereinabove with no order as to costs. Since the petition has been partly allowed and the matter is yet to be decided by the Industrial Court on its own merit, the petitioner may not terminate the services of the employee. However, looking to the facts and circumstances, the Industrial Court is hereby directed to decide the appeal of the employee as early as possible preferably within a period of six months. The record of the Labour Court and Industrial Court be sent forthwith. Final Result : Allowed