RAKESH TIWARI, J. Heard Sri Gulrez Khan, advocate, holding brief of Sri W. H. Khan, counsel for the petitioners and Sri Siddharth, counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed arising out of the award dated 4. 9. 2000 (published on 21. 5. 2001), passed by the Labour Court-II, U. P. , Ghaziabad in Adjudication Case No. 243 of 1994. 3. The undisputed facts of the case are that the workman respondent was engaged as a daily-wager in the petitioners establishment during the span of period 16. 12. 1990 to 30. 9. 1991. The workman was disengaged w. e. f. 30. 9. 1991. " Power of Labour Courts, Tribunal and arbitrators.-In addition to the powers conferred by the Act, labour courts, Tribunals and Arbitrators shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908), when trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely- (a) discovery and inspection; (b) granting of adjournment; and (c) reception of evidence taken on affidavit; and the labour court or Tribunal or Arbitrator may summon and examine any person whose evidence appears to it/him to be material" 10. Neither the documents were got summoned by the workman in support of his case for discharging his burden of proof nor the labour court itself summoned any witnesses or the documents or exercise its power under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Rules framed there under, hence the labour court committed an illegality in shifting the onus as well as burden of proof of actual working upon the employers. 11. It may be noted that the parties are represented before the labour court by authorised representative and not by qualified advocates, therefore, the burden to do justice and to show that justice is being done is upon the Court. If the parties are not well conversant with the procedure, they must be informed by the Court about the procedure or exercise its power under Rules where it is necessary and expedient in the interest of justice. 12. If the parties are not well conversant with the procedure, they must be informed by the Court about the procedure or exercise its power under Rules where it is necessary and expedient in the interest of justice. 12. For the reasons aforesaid and for the fact that the labour court has not given any basis for disbelieving of the employers witness and relying upon the workmans evidence for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that workman had worked for 240 days or more continuously, the evidence is not sufficient basis for the award in deciding the reference in favour of the workman. 13. In my opinion, the award of the labour court suffers from an error apparent on the face of record and illegality in shifting the burden on employer to prove that the workman had not worked for 240 days. It was the workman who has come in the adjudication proceedings and therefore in accordance with settled principles of law, it was the workman to prove his case. 14. For the reasons stated above, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the labour court to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order by either of the parties before it. Consequently, the recovery notice dated 13. 8. 2001, passed in pursuance of the award aforesaid is also quashed. .