JUDGMENT : H.K. Rathod, J. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Dipak R. Dave appearing on behalf of petitioners. In the present group of petitions, the petitioners have challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Valsad in Reference (L.C.V.) Nos. 1949 of 1990 to No. 1960 of, 1990 dated 7th October, 2006. The Labour Court has rejected the Reference filed by the petitioners. 2. Learned Advocate Mr. Dave submitted that Labour Court has committed gross error in not considering the evidence of the workmen and their witnesses those who were before the Labour Court. Learned Advocate Mr. Dave also submitted that Section 25F has been violated by the respondent, but, that fact has not been appreciated by the Labour Court. He further submitted that workmen remained in service for more than 10 to 12 years, then, it is necessary for the workmen to prove 240 days continuous service as required under Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He relied upon the decision of the Court reported in : 2006 (1) GLR 695 . He also submitted that evidence of witness of respondent is not properly appreciated because the State Government has issued project one-by-one for giving employment to the poor employees in a scheme, and in that occasion, when another scheme was going on, the respondent has not called the petitioners as required under Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, he submitted that Labour Court has committed gross error in rejecting the Reference. He also submitted that at present also the work is going on, even though, respondent is not calling the petitioners to report for work. He further submitted that the award passed by the Labour Court it contrary to the settled law and therefore, the same is required to be set aside. Except that, no other submissions are made by learned Advocate Mr. Dave and no decision is relied upon by him. 3. I have considered the submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Dave and I have also perused the award passed by Labour Court which is under challenge. The Labour Court has discussed the case of each petitioners in various paragraphs and has also considered the stand of both the parties. Ultimately Labour Court has referred the various decisions relied by the respective parties and also considered the evidence including the documentary evidence produced by both the parties. The Labour Court has discussed the case of each petitioners in various paragraphs and has also considered the stand of both the parties. Ultimately Labour Court has referred the various decisions relied by the respective parties and also considered the evidence including the documentary evidence produced by both the parties. The depositions of the witnesses of petitioners-workmen were filed on affidavit which were cross-examined by the respondent. Thereafter issues were framed by the Labour Court and accordingly, same has been decided by the Labour Court. The contentions raised by the petitioners before the Labour Court are that petitioners' services were terminated on 23rd July 1988 by violating Section 25F and Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, Labour Court has considered the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court has appreciated the oral evidence as well as documentary evidence produced by the respective parties. The respondent has produced the muster roll of each petitioners before the Labour Court. According to Labour Court, onus upon the workmen to prove 240 days continuous service preceding 12 months, but, according to Labour Court, such onus is not discharged by the petitioners before the Labour Court by leading proper evidence. Before the Labour Court, the documents were produced by respondent vide Exh. 35, i.e. muster roll means original presence register for each workman and the petitioners have also produced the muster roll on the basis of inspection report of pay rolls and inspection was carried out by the petitioners and accordingly, inspection report was produced by the petitioners by preparing the schedule vide Exh. 43. These both the evidences have been taken into account by the Labour Court as to whether workmen have completed continuous service of 240 days within a period of 240 days preceding 12 months from the date of termination. 4. According to the petitioners, date of termination is 23rd July 1988, but, looking to the, inspection report Exh. 43, where, some of the petitioners were in service, upto November 1988 therefore. Labour Court has come to the conclusion that if, the date of termination given by the petitioner dated, 23rd July, 1988 is found to be incorrect which is contrary to the inspection report produced by both the parties vide Exh. 43, therefore, workman was not sure that on which date, he was appointed and on which date, his service was terminated. 43, therefore, workman was not sure that on which date, he was appointed and on which date, his service was terminated. This categorical statement was made by the workmen in his cross-examination. That facts have been observed by the Labour Court in its discussion. The Labour Court has also considered that in statement of claim, petitioners have not given the date of termination and even in documents also, the date of termination is not clear or proved by the petitioners. Therefore, after remanding the matters back by this Court to the Labour Court, Labour Court has considered the presence register produced by the petitioners and also considered the original register vide Exh. 67 which is relating to year 1987-88 and according to the original documents for a period of 1987-88 Exh. 67, if it is considered, then, workmen have not proved 240 days continuous service within a period of 12 months preceding from the date of termination. So, on both the counts, petitioners failed to prove continuous service of 240 days before the Labour Court and none of the petitioners has proved the fact that on which date, his appointment was made and, on which date, his service was terminated. The evidence of the workmen was that whatever it is, they were required to work, and accordingly, presence was marked and salary was received. Therefore, petitioners shall have to prove from original register or by any other evidence that they remained in service continuous for 240 days in a 12 months period. 5. It was not a case of petitioners before the Labour Court that though they remained in service, salary was not paid by the respondents. Therefore, original record of respondents, an inspection was carried out by the petitioners and accordingly, vide Exh. 43, a presence register was produced and according to that register or statement, Labour Court has come to the conclusion that workmen have not proved their case that they remained in service for a period of 240 days within a period of 12 months. Exh. 43 being a statement produced by the petitioners which having inspection of the original record and Exh. 35, which was produced by the respondent, is the presence recorded in their register, but, both are contradictory to each other, even considering Exh. Exh. 43 being a statement produced by the petitioners which having inspection of the original record and Exh. 35, which was produced by the respondent, is the presence recorded in their register, but, both are contradictory to each other, even considering Exh. 43 which was produced by the petitioners, however, it is not proved before the Labour Court by the petitioners that they remained in service continuously for a period of 240 days within a period of preceding 12 months from the date of termination Therefore, on the basis of appreciation of documents including oral evidence, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that petitioners have failed to prove 240 days continuous service rendered by them before the respondent and therefore according to Labour Court, petitioners are not entitled the benefit of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act,. 1947. 6. The Labour Court has come to the conclusion that Section 25H is also not violated by the respondent because no such averments have been made in the statement of claim by the petitioners that Section 25H is violated by the respondents even in oral evidence also, workmen have not disclosed the fact that respondent has violated Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Though, Labour Court has considered the evidence of the witness of the petitioners, breach of Section 25H is not proved by the petitioners. No documentary evidence is produced by the petitioners about the fresh appointment of any employee on the same post and in the same category. No names were given by the petitioners that respondent has employed a single person on the same post and in the same category. So, in absence of details in statement of claim and no documentary evidence produced by the petitioners before the Labour Court and no such details given in oral evidence, Labour Court has come to the conclusion that Section 25H is also not violated as the same is not proved by the petitioners. So, in absence of details in statement of claim and no documentary evidence produced by the petitioners before the Labour Court and no such details given in oral evidence, Labour Court has come to the conclusion that Section 25H is also not violated as the same is not proved by the petitioners. Thereafter, Labour Court has considered the certain decisions of the Apex Court in case of Surendranagar District Panchayat v. Jethabhai Pitamberbhai, Manager, RBI v. S. Mani, Surendranagar District Panchayat v. Gangaben Laljibhai and Ors., Surendranagar District Panchayat v. Dayabhai Jethabhai, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Arjunlal Rajak and after discussing the observations of the Apex Court as referred above with the case of Surendrakumar reported in 2006 LLR 662 , the Labour Court has come to the, conclusion that basically the burden is upon the employee to prove 240 days continuous service rendered by him with the respondent before the Labour Court, but, petitioners have failed to prove 240 days continuous service by oral and documentary evidence and even though, respondent has produced all the relevant records and inspection was carried out of the original record of the respondent by the petitioners and petitioner has produced a detailed statement on the basis of. original record by Exh. 43, but, petitioners failed to prove their case of continuous service of 240 days. Therefore, Labour Court has come to the conclusion that Section 25F is not applicable in such cases and Section 25H is not violated by the respondent. The Labour Court has discussed the aforesaid decision in Para 30 of the award. The Labour Court has come to the conclusion that respondent has proved their defence by leading proper evidence and producing documentary evidence and Labour Court has also considered that when petitioners are not aware about the date of joining and date of termination and nowhere it is mentioned the date of joining and date of termination either in statement of claim or in oral evidence, therefore, in such half hearted evidence, Labour Court has come to the conclusion that petitioners have failed to prove such case before the Labour Court and therefore, Reference has been rejected by Labour Court. 7. The learned Advocate Mr. Dave relied upon the decision reported in 2006 (1) GLR 695 . 7. The learned Advocate Mr. Dave relied upon the decision reported in 2006 (1) GLR 695 . But, it was not the case of petitioners before the Labour Court that they remained in service for all 10 to 12 years continuously without any break. The petitioners were not regularly appointed employee remained for service for one year with authorised breaks which cannot consider to be the breaks in service. But, petitioners were daily wagers working on project as per evidence of respondent. The project was discontinued and their services come to end. The petitioners not discharged initial onus to prove 240 days continuous service. The case of the petitioners not fall under Section 25B(1), but, it falls under Section 25B (2). Therefore, aforesaid decision is not applicable to the facts of this case. The case of petitioners denied by respondents. The respondent produced all the relevant documents for each workmen and inspection report pronounced by petitioner from original record of petitioners, even though, from original records and inspection report, 240 days continuous services was not proved by the petitioners. Even their witnesses were examined before the Labour Court, but, not proved the case of petitioners. No names were given by the petitioners that which new daily wagers were appointed. No details have been given. The project/scheme in which they were working was discontinued, then, question of calling petitioners in other scheme or different scheme does not arise. Therefore, petitioners fails to prove the case, of breach of Section 25F and Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 8. The Apex Court in case of Surendranagar District Panchayat v. Dayabhai, 2005 (3) CLR 892 (SC) decided the same issue. The relevant discussions in Paras 17 and 18 are quoted as under: "17. More recently, in Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, Municipal Corpn., Faridabad v. Siri Nizvas and M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram, this Court has reiterated: the principle that the burden of proof lies on the workman to show that he had worked continuously for 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment and it is for the workman to adduce evidence apart from examining himself to prove the factum of his being in employment of the employer. 18. 18. In the light of the aforesaid, it was necessary for the workman to produce the relevant material to prove that he had actually worked with the employer for not less than 240 days during the period of twelve calendar months preceding the date of termination. What we find is that apart from the oral evidence the workman has not produced any evidence to prove the fact that he has worked for 240 days. No proof of receipt of salary or wages or any record or order in that regard was produced; no co-worker was examined; muster roll produced by the employer has not been contradicted. It is improbable that the workman who claimed to have worked with the appellant for such a long period would not possess any documentary evidence to prove nature of his engagement and the period of work he had undertaken with his employer. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the workman has failed to discharge his burden that he was in employment for 240 days during the preceding 12 months of the date of termination of his service. The Courts below have wrongly drawn an adverse inference for non-production of the record of the workman for ten years. The scope of enquiry before the Labour Court was confined to only 12 months preceding the date of termination to decide the question of continuation of service for the purpose of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The workman has never contended that he was regularly employed in the Panchayat for one year to claim the uninterrupted period of service as required under Section 25B (1) of the Act. In the facts and situation and in the light of the law on the subject, we find that the respondent-workman is not entitled to the protection or compliance with Section 25F of the Act before his service was terminated by the employer. As regards non-compliance with sections 25G and 25H suffice it to say that witness Vinod Misra examined by the appellant has stated that no seniority list was maintained by the department of daily-wagers. As regards non-compliance with sections 25G and 25H suffice it to say that witness Vinod Misra examined by the appellant has stated that no seniority list was maintained by the department of daily-wagers. In the absence of regular employment of the workmen, the appellant was not expected, to maintain seniority list of the employees engaged on daily wages and in the absence of any proof by the respondent regarding existence of the seniority list and his so-called seniority, no relief could be given to him for non-compliance with provisions of the Act. The Courts could have drawn adverse inference against the appellant only when seniority list was proved to be in existence and then not produced before the Court. In order to entitle the Court to draw inference unfavourable to the party, the Court must be satisfied that evidence its in-existence and could have been proved." 9. It is relevant to note important observation made by this Court on prima facie basis when learned advocate Mr. Dave is appearing on behalf of employer where employer remained silent before the Labour Court. It means, no documents were produced by the employer and no oral evidence was led before the Labour Court, then, Labour Court has granted reinstatement with full back wages, which award is under challenge in Special Civil Application No. 16640 of 2004, where, learned Advocate Mr. Dave made submission on behalf of employer relying upon the decision of Supreme Court. The relevant prima facie observations made by this Court (Coram : R.R. Tripathi, J.) on 19th January 2005 are quoted as under, which is applicable to the present case. "Unjha Nagarpalika is before this Court being aggrieved of judgment and award, dated 15.9.2004 in Reference (LCK) No. 69 of 1.992. 2. The learned Judge is pleased to allow the reference of the respondent workman holding that the action of termination of services of the respondent-workman since 3.7.1991 is illegal. The learned Judge was also pleased to order that the respondent-workman be reinstated on his original post, with continuity of service and shall be granted consequential benefits with full back wages. The learned Judge was pleased to order that the petitioner-Nagarpalika shall pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/-, by way of penal cost to the respondent workman. 3. Mr. The learned Judge was also pleased to order that the respondent-workman be reinstated on his original post, with continuity of service and shall be granted consequential benefits with full back wages. The learned Judge was pleased to order that the petitioner-Nagarpalika shall pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/-, by way of penal cost to the respondent workman. 3. Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner Nagarpalika relied upon the decision of the Honourable the Apex Court in the matter of Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) 8 SCC 161 and submitted that it is for the applicant, who approaches the Court, to prove his case. He submitted that the Hon'ble the Apex Court has held in the aforesaid decision that, 'the burden of proof as to working for 240 days in a year lies on the claimant.' He submitted that the Honourable the Apex Court was pleased to hold that, "...It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked upto 240 days in the year preceding his termination...." 4. He further submitted that the Honourable the Apex Court has held in clear terms that, "A mere statement in tins regard on the part of the workman cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence." He submitted that in the present case the deposition of the workman is produced at Annexure-'C to this petition, which runs in one and half para. In this deposition also it is not stated that the workman is in possession of any evidence to show the receipt of wages for 240 days or any order in that regard, and the same is produced. Merely because the Nagarpalika like any other public body which function through its employees who work and discharge their duties with impersonal approach of which judicial notice can be taken, not only did not defend its case but also gave reasons for the learned Judge to be offended, the learned Judge ought to have restrained himself from passing the order under challenge. 5. The learned Advocate for the petitioner-Nagarpalika submitted that the Honourable the Apex Court was dealing with the situation wherein there was non-production of muster roll for a particular part of the relevant period. 5. The learned Advocate for the petitioner-Nagarpalika submitted that the Honourable the Apex Court was dealing with the situation wherein there was non-production of muster roll for a particular part of the relevant period. The Honourable the Apex Court was pleased to hold that such non-production of muster roll for a particular period of the year concerned cannot substantiate the claim of the workman. The Honourable the Apex Court was pleased to observe further that mere non-production of muster roll is not sufficient to hold that the workman had worked for 240 days as claimed. The learned Advocate also invited attention of this Court to another decision of the Honourable Apex Court referred to in the matter of Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. : 2004 (103) FLR 192 (SC) (supra), namely, Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani, 2002 (93) FLR 179 (SC), wherein it is held that, "It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked but this claim was denied by the appellant. It was then for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination. Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had, in fact, worked for 240 days in a year. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement for that period was produced by the workman. On this ground alone, the award is liable to be set aside." (emphasis supplied) 6. Mr. R.V. Desai, learned Advocate for the respondent-workman submitted that the respondent-workman had filed his statement of claim wherein he had stated that he was working as permanent employee since 1984 and that he was working as 'Bore Operator' for the last two years and that he worked for 240 days every year. Mr. Desai submitted that as the contents of this statement of claim remained uncontroverted, and the same were further supported by the respondent-workman by his oral evidence before the learned Judge wherein he stated that, "Exhibit-6 is signed by me and the contents thereof are true The learned Judge has rightly relied upon the said evidence and has rightly passed he award overstatement with full back wages. The submissions of Mr. Desai run counter to the decision of the Honourable the Apex Court. Hence, it cannot be accepted. Mr. Desai also submitted that besides the factum of the respondent-workman having worked for 240 days there another fact and that is not disputed by the Nagarpalika, namely, which is not disputed by the Nagarpalika. Therefore, termination is illegal and the award is justified. This Court is not able to accept the submissions of Mr. Desai, even after taking the most liberal view in the matter." 10. I have considered the reasonings given by the Labour Court and also considered the submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Dave. There it nothing on record about the date of joining and termination, and respondent hail produced all the relevant documents before the Labour Court. Even from that record, though inspection was carried out, but, petitioners are failed to prove their case before the Labour Court. Therefore, Labour Court has rejected the Reference. For that, Labour Court has not committed any error which requires interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Labour Court has applied the mind and discussed all the cases individually and each documents including the oral evidence have been referred and appreciated by the Labour Court and in support of it, the detail reasons have been given by the Labour Court. This Court cannot re-appreciate the same evidence which war already appreciated by the Labour Court while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. Therefore, according to my opinion, Labour Court has not committed any error which requires interference by this Court while exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, there is no substance in this group of petitions. Accordingly, present group of petitions are dismissed. No orders as to costs. Petition Dismissed.