JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner workman is challenging the validity of the award dated 09.07.2009 Annexure-5 passed by Judge, Labour Court, Sriganganagar in Labour Dispute No.70/2007. 3. As per facts of the case, the petitioner was appointed on daily rate basis as 'Beldar' on 01.07.1974 and he worked upto 01.06.1985 and thereafter without any compliance of Section 25-F (a) and (b), 25-G and 25-H of the ID Act, 1947, the petitioner's services were terminated. As per facts, the petitioner raised industrial dispute before the conciliation officer and after failure of conciliation proceedings, the matter was referred to the appropriate Government for making reference. The appropriate Government vide notification dated 29.08.2007 referred the matter to the Judge, Labour Court, Sriganganagar in which the following disputes were referred to the Judge, Labour Court, Sriganganagar for adjudication: "(1) D;k 20 o"kZ dh nsjh ls fookn mBk;k tkuk mfpr gS\ (2) D;k izkFkhZ }kjk fnukad 1-7- 1984 ls 31 -5-1985 rd dk;Z djrs gq, 240 fnu dh lsok iw.kZ dh gS\ (3) D;k Jfed Jh dkyhpj.k iq= Jh lqjtkjke fuoklh Hkk[kM+kokyh dks muds fu;kstd lgk;d vfHk;Urk] xaxuugj dsuky mi[k.M laxfj;k }kjk fnukad 1-6-1985 ls lsok i`Fkd fd;k x;k gS\ ;fn gka rks D;k ,slk djuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gS\ vxj ugha rks Jfed fdl jkgr ,oa jkf'k dks ikus dks vf/kdkjh gS\ " 3. The Judge, Labour Court after considering entire evidence and granting opportunity of hearing to both the parties passed the impugned award dated 29.07.2009 whereby the reference has been answered against the petitioner and held that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief because it has no been proved by the evidence before the Court that petitioner has worked for more than 240 days during the period commencing from 01.07.1984 to 31.05.1985. Further first question which is referred by the appropriate Government with regard to delay has been decided against the petitioner workman. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is no limitation prescribed for the purpose of raising industrial dispute, therefore, the rejection of petitioner's claim on the basis of delay of 20 years is erroneous. 5. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is no limitation prescribed for the purpose of raising industrial dispute, therefore, the rejection of petitioner's claim on the basis of delay of 20 years is erroneous. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention towards the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kuldeep Singh v. G.M., Instrument Design Development and Facilities Centre & Anr., reported in (2011) 2 RLW 1218 (SC) in which as per learned counsel for the petitioner, it is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that no limitation is prescribed in the Act for referring the matter, therefore, reference has to be made if dispute exists at the time of making reference. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although an application was filed by the petitioner for summoning the documents with regard to proving the fact that petitioner workman completed 240 days in between the period commencing from 01.07.1984 to 31.05.1985 but no documentary evidence was placed on record by the respondents, therefore, adverse inference was to be drawn against them but it has not been done, therefore, the petitioner's claim with regard to setting aside the termination w.e.f. 31.05.1985 was rejected without any reason. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the impugned award. Three questions were referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication; first question is related to limitation; second question is whether the petitioner workman completed 240 days or not and third question is with regard to relief, if termination is illegal. 7. Admittedly, as per petitioner himself he was appointed on 01.07,1984 on daily rate basis and worked upto 31.05.1985 but no documentary evidence place on record to prove the fact of completing 240 days. It is true that an application was filed by the petitioner for summoning the document but no documents were filed by the respondent. In my opinion, how it is possible for the department to keep intact the muster rolls after 20 years. The prayer of the petitioner that documents were not submitted by the department before the Labour Court is totally unfounded. In my opinion, it is not necessary for an department to preserve the muster rolls for 20 years and wait that in the event of raising industrial dispute the muster rolls will be required. The prayer of the petitioner that documents were not submitted by the department before the Labour Court is totally unfounded. In my opinion, it is not necessary for an department to preserve the muster rolls for 20 years and wait that in the event of raising industrial dispute the muster rolls will be required. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that Labour Court has failed to accept plea of adverse inference is hereby rejected. 8. With regard to judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that this judgment is with regard to referring the dispute for the adjudication but in the present case the matter was referred by the appropriate Government and upon adjudication it has been held that after 20 years no relief can be granted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court never held that in all the cases even if the workman has not proved the reasons for delay of 20 years, all the dispute should be accepted even after 20 years. Therefore, the facts of the present case are altogether different then the facts of the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. In my opinion, if the petitioner has not completed 240 days then after 20 years the plea of petitioner cannot be accepted that the respondents did not file documents, therefore, presumption was to be drawn. It is totally against the principles of natural justice because no authority can preserve muster rolls for 20 years with presumption that workman will file any claim. 10. In this view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******