Judgment : This Writ Petition takes exception to the Award dated 17-07-2010 passed by the residing Officer, Labour Court, Latur in Reference (IDA) No. 07 of 2005. By the said award, Reference came to be allowed. The first party to the Reference who is petitioners herein was directed to reinstate the services of the respondent herein with continuity of service and full back wages. Copy of the Reference was sent to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Aurangabad for implementation. 2. When this matter was heard by this Court for admission on 13-01-2011, this Court issued notice for final disposal. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on couple of dates for filing reply by the respondent. Today the matter is taken up for final disposal. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 3. The Reference was filed by second party in the year 2004 before the Dy. Commissioner of Labour, Aurangabad. The said Reference was answered with observations that, Shri. Vijay Giri Kishor Giri should be reinstated with full back wages and continuity of service w.e.f. 01-07-1994. Being aggrieved this Writ Petition is filed. 4. It was the contention of the respondent-second party before Labour Court that, he was working as labourer on daily wages basis with the petitioners herein who was the first party in the Reference from 01-01-1984 but the first party without holding any Departmental Enquiry or without any fault of the second party, terminated his services by order dated 01-07-1994. Therefore, the respondent (hereinafter for short "second party") approached the Dy. Commissioner of Labour, Aurangabad seeking relief of reinstatement. Matter went to the Dy. Commissioner of Labour for consideration. The Dy. Commissioner of Labour as per order ExhibitU1 referred the matter as an Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court, Latur for decision. 5. It was the case of the respondent second party that, before his termination on 01-07-1994 he was not given any notice prior to terminating his services nor charge sheet was given to him and no enquiry was conducted against him. He was not given any compensation and therefore, such termination was illegal. It was the contention of the respondent that, he worked continuously from 01-01-1984 to 01-07-1994 and has completed 240 days continuous service in each calender year except the year 1989. 6. The petitioners herein i.e. first party in Reference filed Written Statement to the Statement of Claim at ExhibitC6. It was the contention of the respondent that, he worked continuously from 01-01-1984 to 01-07-1994 and has completed 240 days continuous service in each calender year except the year 1989. 6. The petitioners herein i.e. first party in Reference filed Written Statement to the Statement of Claim at ExhibitC6. The first party admitted in the Written statement that, the second party was in temporary employment with the first party on daily wages basis but he was not appointed by regular recruitment process. His name was not recommended from Employment Exchange and was not selected by the Selection Committee and therefore, his services were purely on temporary basis for seasonal work against no vacant permanent post. It was further stated that, the second party himself has left the service w.e.f. 07-07-1993 and since then he is not in the employment. It was denied by the first party that, the services of the second party were terminated w.e.f. 01-07-1994 and therefore, there was no question of giving prior notice or charge sheet. It was also denied that, the second party has completed more than 240 days of service in a preceding year prior to termination. 7. Labour Court, Latur framed as many as three issues for its determination. Issue No.1 i.e. Does the second party establish that he is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages, was answered in the affirmative. Third issue i.e. whether the second party prove that his services are terminated by the first party w.e.f. 01-07-1994 is also answered in the affirmative and ultimately Reference was allowed and first party the petitioners herein was directed to reinstate the services of the second party respondent herein with continuity of service and full back wages. The said award is the subject matter of this writ petition. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, even if the case of the respondent is taken as it is, his alleged termination was in the year 1994. However, Reference was filed in 2004. There is no any explanation why the Reference is filed in 2004. Therefore, it was delayed and stale Reference. It was further submitted that, the services of the respondent were availed by the petitioners purely on temporary basis, whenever work is available and he has never completed 240 days service in the preceding calender year prior to his termination. There is no any explanation why the Reference is filed in 2004. Therefore, it was delayed and stale Reference. It was further submitted that, the services of the respondent were availed by the petitioners purely on temporary basis, whenever work is available and he has never completed 240 days service in the preceding calender year prior to his termination. Learned Counsel further submitted that, the chart which was produced by the respondent before the Labour Court itself shows that he did not complete 240 days continuous service in preceding year prior to his alleged termination. Learned Counsel invited my attention to the copy of the chart which is placed on record at Page17 produced by the petitioners on record, to contend that in 1993 the respondent has worked only for 128 days. Therefore, according to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the chart at Page17 of the compilation of the petition is perused, except in the year 1986, 1987 and 1992 the respondent has not completed more than 240 days service. According to learned Counsel for the petitioners, respondent was appointed on daily wages. Learned Counsel submitted that some of the findings rendered by the Labour Court and more particularly in respect of abandonment of the work by the respondent was beyond the scope of Reference, though same was pleaded by the petitioner in Written Statement and stand was taken that the respondent has abandoned the services in 1988 itself. The Labour Court should not have traveled beyond the scope of Reference. It is further submitted that, the findings recorded by the Labour Court that the respondent has completed more than 240 days service in preceding year of his alleged termination was without any basis and perverse findings are recorded by the Labour Court. Learned Counsel invited my attention to the written statement which was filed before the Labour court and submitted that the respondent has utterly failed to establish that he has completed more than 240 days in a calender year preceding to his alleged termination. Therefore, findings recorded by the Labour Court in that respect are perverse. Therefore, this writ petition may be entertained. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the burden to prove whether the person has worked more than 240 days or not, was on the respondent and not on the petitioners. Therefore, findings recorded by the Labour Court in that respect are perverse. Therefore, this writ petition may be entertained. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the burden to prove whether the person has worked more than 240 days or not, was on the respondent and not on the petitioners. It was for the respondent to establish his case that he has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding to his alleged termination. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Dnyandeos/o Ganpati Sonawane vs. Executive Engineer, Sarvajanik Bandhakam Vibhag (P.W.D.), Latur and another reported in 2009(2) Mh.L.J. 132 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of KhashabaK. Jadhav vs. S.H. Kelkar & Company and another, reported in 2007(1) C.L.R. 1006. Learned Counsel further submits that, the respondent has no right to ask for reinstatement or continuity of service or back wages. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi and others, reported in 2006(3) L.L.N. 78.Therefore, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that, this petition may be allowed. 10. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent relying on the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent submitted that, the petitioners though filed written statement before the Labour Court, no any Officer has entered in the witness box and no evidence was led. In fact, burden was on the petitioners i.e. employer by producing record to prove that the respondent has not worked for more than 240 days, however, no such record was produced before the Labour Court. Learned Counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the judgment of Gujrat High Court in the case of State of Gujrat and another vs. Jitendra M. Raval and another, reported in 2005 II C.L.R. 403and in particular Head Note 2 and submitted that, when employer has not given any documentary evidence, employee is not expected to produce the same. The employer has to disprove the facts brought on record by employee in his oral evidence. The employer has to disprove the facts brought on record by employee in his oral evidence. Learned Counsel invited my attention to the averments in the affidavit in reply and submitted that, this Court may not invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by entertaining this petition. He further submits that, the respondent is old aged person. There are dependents upon him and ultimately if this petition is allowed, hardship would be caused to the respondent. 11. I have given due consideration to the rival submissions made by Counsel for the parties. Upon perusal of the impugned Award passed by the Labour Court, the finding is recorded by the Court that the respondent has completed 240 days service in a preceding year prior to his termination. In fact, such finding is recorded without any basis. That apart, if the case of the respondent was that his services were terminated in 1994 nothing prevented him from challenging his alleged oral termination till 2004. Only in the year 2004 such Reference was filed, which was after ten years from the alleged oral termination of the respondent. From the discussion of the Labour Court in its Award, it appears that nothing was placed on record to show that the respondent was appointed on any permanent vacancy in the establishment of the petitioners. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners whether the respondent has abandoned services or not, was not within the scope of Reference and Labour Court was not within its jurisdiction to render findings on that aspect. It is true that the petitioners herein did raise such point, however, in view of the authoritative pronouncement of this Court in Reserve Bank of India, Nagpur vs. Central Government Tribunal cum Labour Court, Nagpur and others reported in 2009(2) Mh.L.J. 570, Labour Court should have confined itself to adjudicate only those points which are raised in the Reference. Therefore, findings recorded by Labour Court in respect of abandonment of service were wholly unwarranted and beyond the scope of Reference. 12. Labour Court in Para6 of the Award has referred to the chart filed by the second party vide ExhibitC8. Labour Court perused the said chart and has given findings that in all years 1986 to 1992 the second party has worked for more than 240 days except for the year 1989. 12. Labour Court in Para6 of the Award has referred to the chart filed by the second party vide ExhibitC8. Labour Court perused the said chart and has given findings that in all years 1986 to 1992 the second party has worked for more than 240 days except for the year 1989. Copy of the said chart is placed at Page17. From the perusal of the ExhibitC8 at page17 on the basis of which Labour Court has recorded findings it is crystal clear that, the respondent has not worked more than 240 days not only in the year 1989 but in the year 1990, 1991 and 128 days in the year 1993. Therefore, finding recorded by the Labour Court that, for all the years from 1986 to 1992 except 1989 the respondent has worked for more than 240 days is perverse finding. 13. Therefore, taking over all view of the matter, in my opinion, Labour Court was not correct in passing the Award and giving direction to the petitioners to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service and full back wages. As stated earlier, Labour Court has recorded perverse findings thereby holding that the respondent has worked for more than 240 days from 1986 to 1992 except for the year 1989. The relevant year i.e. preceding year prior to termination was 1993 and from the discussion in the impugned Award, it does appear that the said year is not considered and no finding was recorded. It appears that, in 1993 the respondent has worked only for 128 days. Therefore, what is relevant is that the services rendered by the employee in the preceding year of termination. The another aspect which goes to the root of the matter is that if the alleged termination order was in 1994, the Reference came to be filed after ten years. It was hopelessly delayed and such stale Reference should not have been entertained. 14. Taking overall view of the matter, in my opinion, the impugned Award dated 17-07-2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Latur in Reference (IDA) No. 07 of 2005 cannot be sustained. Hence, same is quashed and set aside. Writ Petition is allowed to the above extent and stands disposed of. Rule made absolute.