JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. Present petition is filed challenging the award dated 11.05.2006 whereby a reference made was answered against the petitioner workman. 2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that petitioner/workman was engaged as daily wager on the post of Beldar on 01.03.1986, however, his services were terminated on 31.08.1990 without issuing any show cause notice, without any valid reason and without following the procedure as provided under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The reference which was made to the Labour Court was :- “As to whether termination of the services of the workman on 31.08.1990 were legal ? If yes, what reliefs should be granted in favour of the workman.” 3. Before the Labour Court, Department submitted that workman has not worked continuously for 240 days in a calendar year; workman was engaged as daily wager to work as Beldar whenever department felt requirement of the temporary beldars. 4. Workman appeared in a witness box as W-1. Learned Labour Court, having placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Surendranagar District Panchayat Vs. Dahyabhai Amarsing reported in 2006 SCC (L&S) 38, came to the conclusion that it was the burden of the workman to prove that he had actually worked for continuously for 240 days in a calendar year. However, workman could not prove that he had worked for 240 days continuously in a calendar year, therefore, termination of the services of the workman could not be said to be illegal. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court. 5. I have heard Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the workman/petitioner and Mr. A.K. Joshi, Addl. C.S.C. for the department. 6. Workman has placed on record chart supplied to the petitioner dated 19.03.2001, annexure No. 6 to the writ petition, wherein it was shown by the department that workman had worked in a calendar year 1986 for 90 days and in the year 1987 for 60 days while did not work in the year 1988 and worked in the year 1989 for 90 days and thereafter in the year 1990 for 153 days. The chart so supplied to the petitioner which was placed on the record by the petitioner is not under challenge. 7. The chart so supplied to the petitioner which was placed on the record by the petitioner is not under challenge. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although he is not disputing the chart, annexure No.6 to the writ petition, however, to find out as to whether petitioner had worked in other days as well in addition to the days as shown in the chart, muster roll ought to have been summoned by the Labour Court. Since Labour court did not discharge duty correctly, therefore, present matter is liable to be remitted back to the Labour Court to summon the muster roll and to find out as to whether petitioner had worked for 240 days in a calendar year. 8. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Surendranagar District Panchayat (Supra) in paragraphs 17 and 18 has held as under:- “17. More recently, in Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan & Another, (2004) 8 S.C.C. 161 , Municipal Corporation, Faridabad vs. Siri Niwas, (2004) 8 S.C.C. 195 and M.P. Electricity Board vs. Hariram, (2004) 8 S.C.C. 246 , this Court has reiterated the principal that the burden of proof lies on the workman to show that he had worked continuously for 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment and it is for the workman to adduce an evidence apart from examining himself to prove the factum of his being in employment of the employer. 18. In the light of the aforesaid, it was necessary for the workman to produce the relevant material to prove that he has actually worked with the employer for not less than 240 days during the period twelve calendar months preceding the date of termination. What we find is that apart from the oral evidence the workman has not produced any evidence to prove the fact that he has worked for 240 days. No proof of receipt of salary or wages or any record or order in that regard was produced; no co-worker was examined; muster roll produced by the employer has not been contradicted. It is improbable that workman who claimed to have worked with the appellant for such a long period would not possess any documentary evidence to prove nature of his engagement and the period of work he had undertaken with his employer. It is improbable that workman who claimed to have worked with the appellant for such a long period would not possess any documentary evidence to prove nature of his engagement and the period of work he had undertaken with his employer. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the workman has failed to discharge his burden that he was in employment for 240 days during the preceding 12 months of the date of termination of his service.” 9. In view of the dictum of the Apex Court, the burden of proof is always of the workman to prove by cogent evidence that he had worked continuously for 240 days in a calendar year. When workman did not discharge his burden and failed to prove above fact, workman is not entitled for any relief. 10. In view of the fact that workman is not disputing the chart, annexure No.6 to the writ petition, therefore, it can very well be said that workman did work for 240 days in a calendar year. Consequently, I do not find any fault in the impugned award. 11. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to Section 6-Q of the Act submits that if workman has been retrenched, then whenever department requires to engage daily wager, workman should be given preference. To appreciate the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Section 6 Q of the Act is being reproduced hereunder :- “6-Q.Re-employment of retrenched workmen.—Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer proposes to take into his employ any persons, he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for reemployment, and such retrenched workmen who offer themselves for reemployment shall have preference over other persons.” 12. Plain reading of Section 6-Q of the Act go to demonstrate that whenever any workman is retrenched and employer proposes to take into his employment any person, then employer shall give an opportunity/ preference to the retrenched workman. 13. Learned Addl. C.S.C. fairly submits that whenever department requires to engage daily wager as a Beldar, a preference shall be given to the workman/petitioner. 14. In view of the above, award passed by the learned Labour Court is upheld. 13. Learned Addl. C.S.C. fairly submits that whenever department requires to engage daily wager as a Beldar, a preference shall be given to the workman/petitioner. 14. In view of the above, award passed by the learned Labour Court is upheld. However, it goes without saying that whenever department proposes to engage daily wager, a preference shall be given to the petitioner workman in terms of Section 6-Q of the Act. 15. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.