JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. : By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the award passed by learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla in Reference No. 267 of 1998 dated 01.08.2009 vide which, learned Labour Court has rejected the claim of the petitioner. 2. In brief, facts necessary for adjudication of the present case are that on an industrial dispute raised by the petitioner/claimant (hereinafter referred to as ‘claimant’), the following reference was received by learned Labour Court from appropriate Government for adjudication: “Whether the termination of services of Shri Lakshmi Chand by the M/s Ballarpur Industries, Unit Shree Gopal papers, Yamuna Nagar (Haryana) w.e.f. 14.3.1995 without any notice, chargesheet, enquiry and without compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief of service benefits, back wages, seniority and amount of compensation, Shri Lakshmi Chand is entitled to?” 3. As per the statement of claim filed by the claimant, he was appointed as a Forest Guard by the respondents and he worked as such with the respondents for years together and had put in 240 days in each calendar year. But despite this, the respondents terminated his services without any requisite notice nor was he given any pay in lieu of the notice. As per the claimant, no retrenchment compensation was paid on account of services rendered by him and in such circumstances, he filed the claim petition praying for reinstatement in service alongwith consequential relief of back wages, continuity of service and allied service benefits. 4. In reply filed to the said claim petition, the respondents denied the claim of the workman. As per the respondents, Ballarpur Industries Limited was a multi unit and multi activity company engaged in the manufacturing of paper amongst other products and the company was having five paper mills in the country for which raw material was required for manufacturing of paper in its mills. As per the respondents, it was carrying on the activity of collecting raw materials for its mills located in different parts of country from various sources throughout the country. One of such raw material was Bhabhar grass and the company had taken on lease some area of the forest land in Himachal Pradesh from the State Government and said lease expired in March, 1994. Thereafter, the same was renewed in November, 1994 up to March, 1995. One of such raw material was Bhabhar grass and the company had taken on lease some area of the forest land in Himachal Pradesh from the State Government and said lease expired in March, 1994. Thereafter, the same was renewed in November, 1994 up to March, 1995. The respondent-company established Nalagarh Block in the State of Himachal Pradesh for collection of Bhabhar grass. This collection Centre was an independent and separate activity of the company. As the period of lease of forest used to be usually for a period of six months, therefore, in Nalagarh Block no permanent work force was ever employed. It was further the case of the respondents that for the activity of the said Block, company was engaging temporary labour force for a fixed duration depending upon the availability of Bhabhar grass which was further depending on several climatic conditions. Further, as per the company, the last lease of the forest in Nalagarh Block where the claimant was engaged was from 28th November, 1994 to 31st March, 1995 and after that the lease was not renewed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh and thus, the activity of collection of Bhabhar grass at Nalagarh Block came to a permanent end on 31st March, 1995. According to the company, the said activity was permanently closed down w.e.f. 31st March, 1995. On merits, the stand of the workman that he had continuously worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year was also not admitted. The company contended that engagement of claimant had come to an automatic end by efflux of time with the closing of activity at Nalagarh Block w.e.f. 31.03.1995 and on these basis, according to the company, the claimant was neither entitled to any reinstatement nor any back wages as he had claimed. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Labour Court framed the following issues: “1. Whether the termination of services of the petitioner by respondent w.e.f. 14.3.1995 in violation of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act? OPP 2. Whether the reference is not maintainable? OPR 3. Relief.” 6. On the basis of material produced on record by the respective parties, following findings were returned to the said issues by the learned Labour Court: “Issue No. 1: No. Issue No. 2: No. Relief: Reference answered in negative per operative part of award.” 7. OPP 2. Whether the reference is not maintainable? OPR 3. Relief.” 6. On the basis of material produced on record by the respective parties, following findings were returned to the said issues by the learned Labour Court: “Issue No. 1: No. Issue No. 2: No. Relief: Reference answered in negative per operative part of award.” 7. Another important fact which needs mention at this stage is that during pendency of the claim petition, the claimant filed an application to place on record certain documents, which application of his was dismissed by learned Labour Court vide order dated 04.08.2008. The order so passed by learned Labour Court vide which it dismissed the application of the claimant was never challenged by way of any legal proceedings by the claimant and the same attained finality. 8. The claimant entered the witness box as PW-1 and stated that he was engaged with the respondents as Forest Guard w.e.f. 01.07.1974 and he continuously worked as such till his services were terminated w.e.f. 14.03.1995. He also stated that he was not served with any notice at the time of termination of his services nor any retrenchment compensation was paid to him. In his cross-examination, he stated that when was employed, no appointment letter was issued to him. He admitted in his cross-examination that the respondent-company was not having any lease from the State of Himachal Pradesh and that the work of collecting grass continued up till 1995-96. 9. Ramesh Chand, Manager (HR) of the respondent-company entered the witness box as RW-1 and stated that the company was having a collection centre of Dry Grass at Nalagarh, H.P., which was a seasonal activity and they used to purchase from the State Government on lease basis. He further deposed that the said lease continued up to March, 1995 and thereafter, it was discontinued. He also stated that the company used to engage seasonal employees during those days and no seasonal work existed after March, 1995. He stated that the company had not engaged any employee at any point of time at Nalagarh and the claimant was engaged in 1993 for seasonal work for specified time, payment for which was made by cheque, which he refused to accept. He also placed on record termination receipts of the petitioner as well as engagement letter and documents pertaining to termination of lease by the State Government. He also placed on record termination receipts of the petitioner as well as engagement letter and documents pertaining to termination of lease by the State Government. He categorically denied that the company had engaged the claimant on regular basis. In his crossexamination, he denied that the claimant was engaged in the year 1974. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records of the case. 11. The claim put forth by the petitioner to the effect that he was engaged as Forest Guard by the respondent-company in the year 1974 and he continued to serve as such till has arbitrary termination on 14.03.1995 is not substantiated by him by producing any cogent material on record. No evidence has been led by the claimant either ocular or documentary from which it could be inferred that the petitioner was engaged on regular basis as a Forest Guard by the respondent-company. Petitioner has not proved his Mandays chart from which it could be deciphered that he had completed 240 days in preceding 12 months from the date when his services were illegally terminated. 12. It is settled law that where a workman alleges that his services have been terminated in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F, then the burden of proof to prove this fact lies on the workman, who has to show that he worked continuously for 240 days in the preceding one year from the date of his alleged termination and the workman has to adduce cogent and reliable evidence in this regard, on the basis of which, it can be deduced by the appropriate Court of law that the claimant had actually worked for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months from the date when his services were illegally terminated. The petitioner in the present case has miserably failed to substantiate his contention that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act have been violated. Not only this, a perusal of the statement of claim filed by the claimant clearly demonstrates that the same is cryptic and totally vague. The statement of claim is quoted hereinbelow from which it is amply clear that the same was totally vague. “1. That the petitioner was appointed by the respondent as Forest Guard and worked with the respondent for years together. The statement of claim is quoted hereinbelow from which it is amply clear that the same was totally vague. “1. That the petitioner was appointed by the respondent as Forest Guard and worked with the respondent for years together. The petitioner has put in 240 days in each calander year. 2. That the petitioner was terminated from service by the respondent without serving requisite notice. The petitioner was not given pay in lieu of notice. No retrenchment compensation was paid on account of service rendered by him. 3. No enquiry whatsoever was held in to the charges if any. The petitioner made efforts to get employment but failed. It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to answer the reference by awarding the relief of reinstatement in service alongwith consequential relief of back wages. Any other relief as is deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted besides the costs of petition.” 13. Not only this, the claimant did not produce any material on record to substantiate his claim that he was in fact engaged as a regular Forest Guard in the year 1974 and he continued to serve as such till 14.03.1995. Application filed by him to produce on record certain documents was rejected by learned Labour Court vide order dated 04.08.2008 and that order was never challenged by the claimant. On the other hand, respondent company placed on record material to substantiate its contention that the engagement of the claimant was for temporary work pertaining to collection of grass and the company was not having any lease to carry out the said work from March 1995 onwards. Whereas the petitioner has not placed his letter of engagement etc. on record, the respondent-company has placed on record as Ex.-RR, communication dated 18.02.1995 from which it is evident that the claimant was lastly engaged as a Guard for 30 days on a consolidated wage of Rs.1046.50/- w.e.f. 14.02.1995. It has also placed on record Ex. RI, memorandum dated 13.03.1995 vide which, the services of the claimant were terminated. 14. on record, the respondent-company has placed on record as Ex.-RR, communication dated 18.02.1995 from which it is evident that the claimant was lastly engaged as a Guard for 30 days on a consolidated wage of Rs.1046.50/- w.e.f. 14.02.1995. It has also placed on record Ex. RI, memorandum dated 13.03.1995 vide which, the services of the claimant were terminated. 14. A perusal of the award passed by learned Labour Court demonstrates that all these aspects of the matter have been gone into in detail by learned Labour Court and after appreciation of material on record, learned Labour Court has concluded that the claimant was not able to establish its case for grant of any relief in his favour. 15. It has been held by this Court in LPA No. 4 of 2016 titled State of H.P. and another Vs. Shankar Lal and other connected matters, decided on 02.01.2016, as under:- “The awards passed by the Labour Court are based on the facts and the evidence led by the parties. It is well settled principle of law that the Writ Court cannot sit as an Appellate Court and set aside the award made by the Labour Court, which is based on evidence and facts. 16. Thus, it is evident that as far as the awards passed by the learned Labour Courts are concerned, the finding of fact so recorded by the learned Labour Court should not be interfered until and unless the findings so returned by the learned Labour Court are perverse or not borne out from the material on record. 17. In the present case, it cannot be said that the findings returned by the learned Labour Court are either perverse or not borne out from the material on record, therefore, the same do not warrant any interference. 18. Accordingly, I concur with the award passed by the learned Labour Court and hold that there is no merit in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.