ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Mankad learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Havewala learned advocate for Mr. Mehta learned advocate for the respondent. Rule. At the request of learned advocates and with their consent the petition is taken up for final Nearing and disposal today. Mr. Havewala has waived service of Notice of Rule. 2. The petitioner, an employee of Rajpipla Municipality, has brought under challenge award dated 5-9-2008 passed by the Labour Court Bharuch in reference (LCB) No. 111 of 2001 whereby the Labour Court has rejected the reference and declined to grant relief as prayed for by the petitioner-workman. The petitioner-workman raised industrial dispute in connection with his termination from service, with effect from 1-8- 2000. It was his case that he was terminated with effect from 1-8-2000 and before, terminating his service any procedure prescribed by law was not followed. He claimed that action of the respondent Municipality was in nature of victimisation and tainted by mala fide besides being illegal. Conciliation proceedings failed and the dispute culminated in the aforesaid reference. The petitioner-workman filed his statement of claim before Labour Court reiterating aforesaid allegations. 3. The reference was contested by the respondent Municipality. The respondent Municipality raised contention that it being a local authority would not be covered within the purview of definition of the term "industry" under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The respondent Municipality further claimed that the respondent was engaged intermittently from time to time on need basis and he. had not completed work for 240 days either in immediately preceding 12 months or even in of the earlier 12 months' period. The respondent Municipality claimed that the petitioner-workman was engaged, from time to time, on fixed tenure basis and that therefore, his employment with the respondent Municipality was covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) and that therefore, there was no question of violation of Section 25(F) of the Act as alleged by the petitioner-workman or otherwise. 4. During the proceedings before, the Labour Court the petitioner-workman had submitted an application for production of certain documents, particularly the muster-roll. On the said application Labour Court had passed an order requiring the respondent Municipality to produce, the documents. 4. During the proceedings before, the Labour Court the petitioner-workman had submitted an application for production of certain documents, particularly the muster-roll. On the said application Labour Court had passed an order requiring the respondent Municipality to produce, the documents. It appears that pursuant to the said order the respondent Municipality had produced photocopies of some of the muster- rolls, however, the petitioner-workman claimed that respondent Municipality had selectively produced the photocopies of the muster-roll and had failed to produce muster-roll for the relevant period. 5. On such premise, the petitioner raised a contention that the Labour Court ought to have drawn adverse inference. 6. Oral evidence of the petitioner-workman was recorded. After considering the documents and oral evidence, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner had failed to establish that he had put in work for 240 days. The Labour Court also recorded that it was established from the evidence on record that petitioner-workman was working on daily wage basis and that his engagement from time to time by the respondent Municipality was not effected after following the procedure for selection. In other words the Labour Court recorded finding that engagement/appointment of the petitioner-workman was irregular and was not in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations. In light of such findings the Labour Court recorded that the protection under Section 25(F) was not available to the petitioner. Having come to such conclusion the Labour Court rejected reference. Aggrieved by the award, the respondent is before this Court. 7. Mr. Mankad learned advocate has appeared for the petitioner. He emphasised that once the Labour Court had passed an order directing respondent Municipality to produce the documents, it was obligatory for the respondent Municipality to produce documents on record at the request made by the petitioner-workman. However, the respondent Municipality had failed to comply with the directions and that therefore, adverse inference should have been drawn. Mr. Mankad learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that there was no justification to record findings that the petitioner had not put in work for 240 days. Mr. Mankad, further submitted that the petitioner had actually put in work for 240 days during his tenure from the year 1990 to August 2000 and therefore, the petitioner was entitled for protection under Section 25(F) of the Act. 8. The learned advocate for the respondent Municipality has opposed the petition. Mr. Mankad, further submitted that the petitioner had actually put in work for 240 days during his tenure from the year 1990 to August 2000 and therefore, the petitioner was entitled for protection under Section 25(F) of the Act. 8. The learned advocate for the respondent Municipality has opposed the petition. He relied on the observations made in the award where the Labour Court has recorded that Municipality had produced the copies of muster-roll, however the petitioner-workman was insisting for production of the original muster-roll and was not accepting production of photocopies of the muster-roll. He submitted that the petitioner-workman was engaged on daily wage basis and without following the procedure prescribed for the purpose of selection and recruitment. He submitted that findings and decision of the Labour Court are in consonance with the settled legal position and does not warrant any interference. 9. It is pertinent to note that Mr. Mankad learned advocate, for the petitioner though challenges the findings of the Labour Court regarding actual working days of the petitioner workman, has not assailed the findings of the Labour Court that the employment of the petitioner was on daily wage basis and was not effected after prescribed procedure for selection or recruitment. 10. Thus, there is no challenge against the findings by the Labour Court that the employment of the petitioner was illegal and the procedure prescribed for selection or recruitment was not followed by the respondent municipality. 11. A person who has been engaged by local authority i.e. in public employment without following prescribed procedure would not be entitled to claim reinstatement on the ground of alleged breach of Section 25(F) of the Act and/or to claim right to be continued in the service. It has been held by the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in case of Halvad Nagarpalika & others v. Jani Dipakbhai Chandravadanbhai & others in LPA No. 1202 of 2002 and companion matters that appointment on daily wage basis effected without following regulation and prescribed procedure, it is immaterial as to whether they had completed 240 days in a year or not. In para 18 of the said judgment it has been held : 18. We have dispassionately and in great length heard the learned advocates as well as the learned A.G.P. appearing for the respective parties. In para 18 of the said judgment it has been held : 18. We have dispassionately and in great length heard the learned advocates as well as the learned A.G.P. appearing for the respective parties. We have also gone through the record and proceedings of all these Letters Patent Appeals as well as Special Civil Applications, and we have also considered the authorities relied upon by the respective parties. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the entire factual profile of the matter in the light of the settled legal position propounded before us. we are of the view that the learned single Judge is not right in giving directions to the appellant Nagarpalika to reinstate the daily-waged employees in their respective positions giving liberty to the appellant Nagarpalika to retrench them after following the due procedure as laid down under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. We are also of the view that the Labour Court is not justified in allowing the Reference and directing that the concerned worker should be made permanent with effect from January 1, 2002 and they should be given all the benefits as permanent employees. The Labour Court has exceeded its jurisdiction while giving directions with regard to the persons for whom there was no Reference to the effect that they should also be given benefits of permanent employees as per seniority as and when there would be vacancies and they should also be given all the benefits. It is an admitted position that all these persons were appointed or engaged as daily wagers without following any legal procedure. It is also an admitted position that their names had not been received from any Employment Exchange or they were not appointed after inviting applications in pursuance of public advertisement. They were appointed only because of the administrative exigencies at the relevant time. When their appointments were made without following due procedure of statutory rules or the recruitment policy, it is immaterial as to whether they have completed the service of 240 days in a year or not. As observed earlier, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the provisions of Section 25-F cannot be invoked in the case of daily-waged employees whose appointments are without following the due procedure laid down in statutory rules or recruitment policies. As observed earlier, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the provisions of Section 25-F cannot be invoked in the case of daily-waged employees whose appointments are without following the due procedure laid down in statutory rules or recruitment policies. When there is no permanent sanctioned posts, no direction can be given to the authorities to absorb the daily-waged employees by creating new posts. (Emphasis supplied) 12. In another case, between Karjan Municipality v. S.K. Shukla reported in 2004 (3) GLH 23 it has been held, following the judgment in Halvad Nagarpalika's case that : "2.6. In view of the above, Mr. Patel has relied upon the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Halvad Nagarpalika & Ors. v. Jani Dipakbhai Chandravadanbhai reported in (2003) 2 GHJ 397 , wherein it has been held that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, provisions of Section 25-F cannot be invoked in the case of daily wage employees whose appointments are without following the due procedure laid down in statutory rules of recruitment policies and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court is required to be quashed and set aside. The Division Bench has further held as under : "12. Mr. Vyas has further relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Himanshu v. State of Bihar & Ors. (1997) 4 SCC 391 : (1997 Lab IC 2075), wherein the main grievance of the petitioner was that termination of the services was in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the persons, whose services were terminated, were not appointed to the posts in accordance with the rules but were engaged on the basis of need of work. They were temporary employees working on daily wages and in those circumstances, their disengagement from service could not be construed to be a retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act. It was further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the concept of retrenchment therefore, cannot he stretched to such an extent as to cover the said employees. They were temporary employees working on daily wages and in those circumstances, their disengagement from service could not be construed to be a retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act. It was further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the concept of retrenchment therefore, cannot he stretched to such an extent as to cover the said employees. While negativing the contention of the petitioners in that case that the termination of their services was arbitrary, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that they were only daily wage employees and had no right to the posts and hence their disengagement was not arbitrary." 3.1. The appointment of the respondent was for specific period, therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb), it is not a retrenchment. Therefore, the petitioner-Municipality was justified in relieving the respondents." 13. The Honourable Full Bench of this Court in case of Amreli Municipality v. Gujarat Pradesh Municipal Employees Union reported in 2004 (3) GLR 1841 held that : "12.1. After considering the decisions cited before us, the following principles emerge : (A) No regularisation or permanency can be effected dehors the statutory provisions or the guidelines. (B) Long service put in by the workmen itself may not be a ground to regularise services of ad hoc/temporary workmen against the sanctioned set up without following statutory procedure of recruitment. At the most, Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal can issue direction for consideration of absorption subject to availability of posts on the establishment. (C) To avoid nepotism and corruption, no back-door entry in service; (D) Financial capacity of the local body to have additional burden is a relevant consideration to be kept in mind while ordering regularisation or absorption;" 14. In this view of the matter I do not find any strong and compelling reason to hold that Labour Court has committed any error of jurisdiction in rejecting the reference. The learned Labour Court has relied on the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in case of State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi (3) & Ors. reported in 2006 SCC (L & S) 753: ( AIR 2006 SC 1806 ). The Labour court has also relied on the judgment of this Court reported in GLR XL VIII page 242 and the finding and decision of the Court are based on the said authorities. 15. Mr. v. Umadevi (3) & Ors. reported in 2006 SCC (L & S) 753: ( AIR 2006 SC 1806 ). The Labour court has also relied on the judgment of this Court reported in GLR XL VIII page 242 and the finding and decision of the Court are based on the said authorities. 15. Mr. Mankad learned advocate for the petitioner has not assailed the finding of the labour Court and there is no dispute about the finding of the Labour Court that the employment of the petitioner workman with the respondent municipality was irregular and was not made in accordance with prescribed procedure. When the petitioner admitted in his evidence that he was engaged only on daily wage basis and when the finding of the learned trial Court that the petitioner's engagement was not in accordance with applicable rules i.e. his engagement with respondent municipality was irregular, then the contention that the learned trial court ought to have drawn adverse inference, meaning thereby completion of work for 240 days in preceding 12 months should have been presumed, pates into or recedes to insignificance as in the cases of irregular appointments in public employments mere completion of 240 days without there being sanctioned strength and available vacancy, availability of sufficient work etc., would not earn right of continuity in employment. Thus the said contention would not, in the facts of present case, help the petitioner and will not take his case further. 16. The trial Court has, thus, not committed any error of jurisdiction in rejecting the reference and the findings recorded in impugned award are, not contrary to law or arbitrary or perverse so as to invite any interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of the limited jurisdiction. There is no justification to interfere with the finding and the decision of the Labour Court. 17. Hence, the petition fails and accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged. Petition dismissed.