JUDGMENT : Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J. The petitioner erstwhile Gujarat Electricity Board has challenged award dated 01.11.2001 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference LCI No. 115 of 1997. 2. The brief facts are as under. 3. Respondent was engaged as a daily wager by the petitioner for handling complaints of the Electricity Board. According to him he had worked continuously for 14 months between August 1992 to October 1993. He was being paid Rs.450 per month. His services were terminated by oral order on 18.10.1993 without following any procedure. 4. Questioning legality of such termination, he raised industrial dispute. The labour Court believed that he had worked for more than 240 days and his services were without following mandatory requirements of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The labour Court thereupon passed the impugned award, directing his reinstatement with full back-wages. 5. Learned advocate Shri Hasurkar for the petitioner vehemently contended that the labour Court committed a serious error in allowing the reference and directing reinstatement with back-wages. He stated that the workman had not completed 240 days during the 12 calender months immediately preceding the date of termination. He failed to establish this important fact through any reliable evidence. He was engaged purely on the basis of the need of electricity Board. He would work only for one or two hours in a day. This was established through the evidence of the officer of the Electricity Board. Counsel submitted that it was primarily the duty of the workman to establish that he had worked for more than 240 days during the relevant period. 6. On the other hand, Shri Champaneri for the respondent opposed the petition contending that the labour Court has arrived at factual findings based on evidence on record. Such conclusions cannot be stated to be perverse. In exercise of writ jurisdiction therefore, the Court would not upset such findings, nor would interfere with the exercise of discretionary power by the labour Court in directing reinstatement with back-wages. 7. One may assess the evidence on record. The workman was examined at Exh. 9. In his deposition, he has stated that he had worked for the Electricity Board for 14 months. He was doing the work of noting down the complaints of the consumers and receiving salary of Rs.450 per month. 7. One may assess the evidence on record. The workman was examined at Exh. 9. In his deposition, he has stated that he had worked for the Electricity Board for 14 months. He was doing the work of noting down the complaints of the consumers and receiving salary of Rs.450 per month. His duty hours were between 8 in the morning to 5 in the evening with one hour recess. His last month's salary was unpaid. When he demanded the salary, he was terminated. The termination was affected without notice or notice pay or retrenchment compensation. He had worked for more than 240 days in a year. The nature of work was permanent. In the cross-examination, he denied that his duty hours were only for 4 hours between 8 to 12 in the morning. He was shown complaints produced alongwith list Exh-11, which he agreed were in his handwriting and contained his signature. These complaints were given Exh. 12 to 15. He denied that he had not worked for more than 240 days. He denied that he was after termination gainfully employed elsewhere. 8. One Bharatkumar Shrimali, Deputy Engineer was examined by the employer at Exh. 25. In his deposition, he has stated that during the peak hours to handle the large number of complaints, help was needed. Though, there was a permanent employee doing this work, additional help was required, for which the workman was engaged on daily basis. He was given work for half an hour or one hour everyday in the morning and for similar period in the evening. He would sometimes come in the morning between 10 to 11 and sometimes in the evening between 3 to 4. He was paid Rs.15 per day. In the cross examination he denied that the workman was being called from 8 in the morning to 4 in the evening or from 4 in the evening till midnight. He assured the Court that the Gujarat Electricity Board maintains the complaint register and he would produce such register from the period between August 1992 to October 1993. He also agreed to produce the payment register. He also agreed to produce the payment vouchers of the workman if available with the electricity company. 9. This in the nutshell is the evidence on record. He also agreed to produce the payment register. He also agreed to produce the payment vouchers of the workman if available with the electricity company. 9. This in the nutshell is the evidence on record. It is undoubtedly true that the burden to establish that the workman had completed 240 days of work during the relevant period of 12 calender months, primarily rests on the workman. However, there cannot be any rigid or straitjacket formula, providing the manner in which such burden can be discharged. It must depend on facts of each case. We may examine the evidence to judge whether in the present case, such burden was discharged. 10. The workman entered the witness box and deposed before the labour Court that he had virtually continuously worked for 14 months. He was being engaged on every day and had completed 240 days of work. No written order of appointment was given nor his termination was in writing. By very nature of things therefore would have skeletal documents that may be available, they would be within the custody of the employer. The workman having taken the first step of deposing before the Court regarding the nature of his employment, the period of such employment and that he was engaged virtually continuously, it was at least the minimum duty of the employer to challenge such testimony of the workman. As against this, the witness of the electricity company Shri Bharatkumar Shrimali in his deposition did not even assert that the workman had not completed 240 days of work during the relevant period. It was not even a case of word against word. It was a case of workman's oral deposition having gone almost unchallenged. Equally, significantly the said witness assure to produce relevant documentary evidence such as the payment registers and the vouchers for paying the salary to the workman, a promise which he never kept. 11. In fact, the main thirst of the deposition of this witness was that the workman was engaged only for half an hour or one hour in morning and for same time in the evening. This witness never focused on total number of days of work put in by the workman. With the aspect of daily duty hours, I would advert to at a later stage. This witness never focused on total number of days of work put in by the workman. With the aspect of daily duty hours, I would advert to at a later stage. In so far as the question of having worked 240 days is concerned, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court was justified in holding this issue in favour of the workman. To sum up, in view of the workman's own testimony, the deposition of the witness of the electricity company who did not question the number of days worked by the workman and his act of not producing the relevant documents though called upon in the cross examination and argued by him, the inescapable conclusion would be that the workman had discharged his burden of establishing total number of days worked by him. 12. The version of the employer that he was putting in barely half and hour of work or so in the morning and in the evening, simply cannot be accepted. To begin with, there was no written order to this effect issued by the employer. Secondly, the salary of Rs.450 per month or Rs.15 per day considered in the backdrop of the year 1992/1993 is not commensurate with the alleged period of work of about one hour in the whole day, the salary suggests full duty hours and the theory of the workman discharging value of one hour duty in a day is simply not believable. Reliance of the employer on Exhibits-12 to 15 in support of this theory is simply not tenable. Learned advocate Shri Hasurkar places on record copies of such exhibits. Interestingly, all three documents are copies of a single extract of a page of the complaint register containing three complaints noted down by the workman on 24.02.1993, one single document of one page of the complaint register cannot establish the duty hours of the workman. This documents contained three complaints registered by the workman at 3:20, 4:10 and 4:10 respectively. This nowhere establishes that he was working only between 3 and 4 everyday. As already noted all three exhibits are identical. One single page of the complaint register out of 14 months of work done by the workman cannot find the basis to conclude that he was working only between 3 and 4 in the afternoon. 13. This nowhere establishes that he was working only between 3 and 4 everyday. As already noted all three exhibits are identical. One single page of the complaint register out of 14 months of work done by the workman cannot find the basis to conclude that he was working only between 3 and 4 in the afternoon. 13. It is undisputed that before terminating the services of the workman, no procedure under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act was followed, neither notice was issued, nor notice pay in lieu thereof was given. Retrenchment compensation was also not paid. In that view of the matter, the termination of the workman was illegal. The question regarding the final directions still remain. The workman had worked barely for about one year way back in the year 1992/1993. More than 20 years have been passed since then. He was engaged purely on temporary basis to help the regular staff to handle complaints of the consumers. The witness of the electricity company had stated that such work was then assigned to the regular staff. In other words, the electricity company no longer needed to engage the service of a daily wager in facts of the present case. Therefore directing reinstatement now with back-wages in the entire period would be highly inappropriate. 14. In case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Bhurumal, reported in 2014 (7) SCC 177 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court in some of the similar background, observed that granting relief of reinstatement after a long gap of time would serve no purpose. When the service of daily wager are terminated illegally, he should be granted mandatory compensation and not reinstatement with back-wages. It was observed as under: "33. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and/or malafide and/or by way of victimisation, unfair labour practice etc. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and/or malafide and/or by way of victimisation, unfair labour practice etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily wage worker and where the termination is found illegal because of procedural defect, namely in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious. 34. Reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularisation (See: State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi ( 2006 4 SCC 1 )). Thus when he cannot claim regularisation and he has no right to continue even as a daily wage worker, no useful purpose is going to be served in reinstating such a workman and he can be given monetary compensation by the Court itself inasmuch as if he is terminated again after reinstatement, he would receive monetary compensation only in the form of retrenchment compensation and notice pay. In such a situation, giving the relief of reinstatement, that too after a long gap, would not serve any purpose. 35. We would, however, like to add a caveat here. There may be cases where termination of a daily wage worker is found to be illegal on the ground it was resorted to as unfair labour practice or in violation of the principle of last come first go viz. while retrenching such a worker daily wage juniors to him were retained. There may also be a situation that persons junior to him were regularised under some policy but the concerned workman terminated. while retrenching such a worker daily wage juniors to him were retained. There may also be a situation that persons junior to him were regularised under some policy but the concerned workman terminated. In such circumstances, the terminated worker should not be denied reinstatement unless there are some other weighty reasons for adopting the course of grant of compensation instead of reinstatement. In such cases, reinstatement should be the rule and only in exceptional cases for the reasons stated to be in writing, such a relief can be denied." 15. Similar view was expressed in case of Hari Nandan Prasad and Another, reported in 2014 (7) SCC 190 also. 16. In facts of the case, therefore, the petitioner is directed to pay sum of Rs.1 Lacs to the respondent by way of respondent's full claim of reinstatement and back-wages. Award of the labour Court is modified accordingly. Petition stands disposed of.