ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The Writ Petitioner working with the Office of Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Wardha questions legality of the Judgment delivered in Reference I.D.A. Case No.142 of 1998 by the learned First Labour Court, Nagpur. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the services of the respondent were duly terminated w.e.f. 20.5.1989. It is contended that record of the petitioner is preserved for five years only and therefore, the respondent was not entitled to any relief as he was a casual labourer and was not in continuous service. He had worked only for seven years. That being so, the claim made by the respondent ought not to have been accepted by the Reference Court. The claim suffers from delay and laches and the dispute raised was without any plausible reason. 3. It appears that the Award was delivered on 14.8.2003 pursuant to the impugned proceedings in Reference I.D.A. Case No.142 of 1998. The evidence was led in the case and the issues were also framed as follows with findings thereof : “1. Does party no.2 prove that he was in the regular employment of party no.1 since 1.3.87 and has completed continuous services of 240 days as contemplated in Section 25B of the I.D. Act ? …. Yes. 2. Does party no.2 prove that party no.1 has illegally terminated his services on 20.5.89 ? …. Yes. 3. Whether the party no.2 is entitled to get reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages ? …. Yes. 4. What order ? …. Yes.” 4. Perused the evidence of party no.2 through witness Manohar Baburaoji Uchake and the evidence of Kaniya Ratanlal Bajaj. Said Kaniya Ratanlal Bajaj in his evidence admitted that no seniority list was prepared in the case and payment of job work was drawn in the name of Junior Engineer concerned. At the relevant time, Mr. Kurode was Executive Engineer. Admittedly, no record was produced in respect of conciliation proceedings on the ground that it was not available; as, according to the petitioner, such record is maintained only for a period of five years. While witness Manohar Uchake gave his evidence that one Mr. Tompe clerk used to record attendance. It has further come in his evidence that respondents Sudhakar amd Purushottam were working as labourers in the vehicle which was driven by witness Manohar Uchakey and Mr. While witness Manohar Uchake gave his evidence that one Mr. Tompe clerk used to record attendance. It has further come in his evidence that respondents Sudhakar amd Purushottam were working as labourers in the vehicle which was driven by witness Manohar Uchakey and Mr. Uchakey had seen Purushottam (respondent) during the period between 1987 till 1989. Under these circumstances, on the basis of said evidence, the reference Court held that the respondent through Purushottam had completed continuous service of 240 days as contemplated under Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thus, it followed that the services of respondent Mr. Purushottam was illegally terminated on 20.5.1989. Under these circumstances, it was held that respondent Purushottam was entitled to get reinstatement with continuity of services and backwages. Since the plea of continuous service for more than 240 days was proved by respondent Purushottam and there is evidence that he had worked till the date of his termination which, according to the respondent, was illegal, the findings recorded were consistent with the evidence produced before the first Labour Court, Nagpur since the petitioner did not bother to preserve record in respect of the case. I do not find any serious infirmity in the impugned order so as to interfere with the same in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.