JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Sri Arvind Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manu Mishra holding brief of Sri Ashok Trivedi, the learned counsel for the respondent workman. 2. By means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal whereby the petitioner has been directed to reinstate the workman with effect from the date when junior workers to the workman were engaged and further directed to pay wages from the said date. 3. The Union on behalf of the workman espoused the cause by referring a dispute with regard to the validity of the termination of the workman w.e.f. 19.11.1977. This dispute was raised and referred after almost 10 years by an order of the State Government dated 12.1.1988. The petitioner in their written statement contended that the respondent was engaged on exigencies of service on daily rated basis and that he had never worked for 240 days in a calender year nor the employer had dispensed his services and that the workman himself had abandoned and left the services on his own accord. On the other hand, the Union, in the written statement, contended that the services of the workman was wrongly terminated and that he had worked for more than 240 days and that his services could not be dispensed with without complying with the provisions of Section 6-N of the Act. The Union contended that since retrenchment compensation had not been paid, the termination of the services of the workman was wholly illegal and that he was liable to be reinstated with continuity of service and with full back wages. In the rejoinder statement, the employer submitted that the workman was gainfully employed and that after leaving the services, the workman had joined the services of a sugar factory. 4. Before the Industrial Tribunal, the workman appeared and gave his deposition admitting that after being wrongfully retrenched by the petitioner he was gainfully employed in a sugar factory where he is working as a permanent seasonal workman since December, 1977. 5. During the course of hearing of the matter before the Tribunal, the workman moved an application praying that he should be permitted to lead additional evidence. This application was opposed by the petitioner, inspite of which, the Tribunal allowed the application and, directed the workman to lead the additional evidence. 5. During the course of hearing of the matter before the Tribunal, the workman moved an application praying that he should be permitted to lead additional evidence. This application was opposed by the petitioner, inspite of which, the Tribunal allowed the application and, directed the workman to lead the additional evidence. In the additional evidence, the workman contended, that juniors to the workman were retained in service and, therefore, the employers had violated the provisions of Section 6-P of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. 6. The Tribunal, after considering the material evidence on record, found that the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act was not violated by the petitioner inasmuch as, the workman had not put in 240 days of service in a calendar year. Since the workman was not in continuous service, the petitioner were not obliged to provide for payment of compensation as required under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The Industrial Tribunal, found that juniors to the workman had been retained by the petitioner and therefore, concluded that the provisions of Section 6-P of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act was violated by the petitioner and, on this score, the Tribunal directed the petitioner to reinstate the workman with effect from the date the juniors had been engaged and also pay the wages from that period. The petitioner, being aggrieved, by this award had filed the present writ petition. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, this Court is of the opinion, that the award of the Labour Court cannot be sustained. This Court has perused the written statement and the rejoinder affidavit filed by the workman before the Industrial Tribunal. There is no pleading to the effect that juniors to the workman were retained by the petitioner nor there is any pleading that the petitioner had violated the principles of last come and first go as provided under Section 6-P of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. It is well settled principle of law, that evidence is required to support the pleadings. The evidence can be oral or by way of documentary proof. But only such evidence can be entertained which proves an allegation made in the pleadings. Once the pleadings are exchanged, the issues are framed or determined and thereafter evidence is required to be led in order to prove those pleadings. The evidence can be oral or by way of documentary proof. But only such evidence can be entertained which proves an allegation made in the pleadings. Once the pleadings are exchanged, the issues are framed or determined and thereafter evidence is required to be led in order to prove those pleadings. In the present case, the Court finds that the pleadings with regard to violation of Section 6-P was never raised and that the petitioner had no opportunity to rebut these allegations which the petitioner raised in their additional evidence. 8. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that the additional evidence raised by the workman has no relevance and could not be taken into consideration since the pleadings on these aspect was not raised by the workman. Consequently, the question of violation of the provisions of Section 6-P of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act could not be considered by the Tribunal. On the other hand, there is a clear finding of fact, namely, that the workman had never put in 240 days in a calendar year. The dispute raised is with regard to the validity and legality of the order of termination which was challenged by the workman on the ground of violation of the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. Since the Tribunal found that the workman had not put in 240 days in a calendar year and also gave a finding that the provisions of Section 6-N was not contravened by the employer, the Tribunal, should have closed the matter there and then and should have declined to answer the reference. The Tribunal, consequently, proceeded beyond its jurisdiction in directing reinstatement of the workman. 9. There is another aspect of the matter with regard to the existence of an Industrial dispute. The Union raised the dispute after 10 years from the date of the alleged termination of the services of the workman. The petitioner came out with the specific case, namely, that the workman had abandoned his service and had left the service on his own accord. The workman admitted in his evidence that he was gainfully employed in a sugar factory since 1977. There is nothing to indicate that the workman raised the dispute at the initial stage itself. All these evidence goes to prove that no Industrial dispute existed or was apprehended at the time when the reference was made. 10. The workman admitted in his evidence that he was gainfully employed in a sugar factory since 1977. There is nothing to indicate that the workman raised the dispute at the initial stage itself. All these evidence goes to prove that no Industrial dispute existed or was apprehended at the time when the reference was made. 10. In the light of the aforesaid, the Court is of the opinion that the award cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. ———