JUDGMENT: K.M. Thaker, J. Heard Mr. Chauhan and Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. K.J. Dave and Mr. K.K. Acharya, learned advocate for the respondent. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the award dated 14.2.2005 passed by learned labour Court at Surendranagar in Reference (LCS) No. 260 of 1993 whereby learned labour Court directed present petitioner Panchayat to reinstate present respondent with continuity of service but without backwages. 1.1 The petitioner is aggrieved by the direction to reinstate the respondent and also by the direction to grant continuity of service. 2. At the outset it is necessary to mention that while admitting the petition vide order dated 30.1.2006 the Court granted ad-interim relief and stayed the direction granting continuity of service to the respondent herein. 2.1 The direction to reinstate the respondent was not stayed. 2.2 A Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the said interim order dated 30.1.2006 failed. 2.3 Consequently the petitioner reinstated the respondent, probably w.e.f. 14.8.2007. 3. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the order rejecting Letters Patent Appeal and in view of the order dated 30.1.2006 the respondent came to be reinstated in the service. 3.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner as well as learned advocate for the respondent have confirmed the said factual aspect. 3.2 The said submission and admission about factual aspect translate into the fact that from 2007 onwards the respondent was employed with the petitioner. 3.3 The respondent herein raised industrial dispute against the termination of her service. 3.4 The dispute came to be referred for adjudication to learned labour Court at Surendranagar. 3.5 The order of reference dated 30.10.1993 came to be registered as Reference (LCS) No. 260 of 1993. 3.6 In the said reference proceedings the respondent filed statement of claim wherein she alleged that she was working with the petitioner Panchayat since last 10 years and the petitioner Panchayat arbitrarily terminated her service w.e.f. 21.7.1990. 3.7 She also alleged that when her service was terminated the petitioner Panchayat did not pay retrenchment compensation or notice pay or any other amount. 3.8 She also alleged that her service was not terminated for any misconduct. 3.9 The respondent herein alleged that her service was terminated in violation of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). 3.10 The reference and the said allegations were denied by petitioner Panchayat. 3.8 She also alleged that her service was not terminated for any misconduct. 3.9 The respondent herein alleged that her service was terminated in violation of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). 3.10 The reference and the said allegations were denied by petitioner Panchayat. In its written statement the petitioner Panchayat claimed that the petitioner had never employed the respondent in any capacity whatsoever and the respondent had never worked with it in any capacity whatsoever and that therefore question of terminating her service, much less w.e.f. 21.7.1990 never arises. 3.11 During the proceedings before learned labour Court deposition of the claimant workman was recorded at exh. 12. 3.12 The petitioner Panchayat examined its witness Mr. Narsinhbhai Haribhai whose deposition was recorded at exhibit 16. 3.13 Thereafter learned labour Court considered the submissions on behalf of the petitioner and the claimant workman. 3.14 After considering the material on record and the rival submissions, the learned Court considered it appropriate to draw inference with regard to the factum of respondent's employment as well as with regard to the issue related to total number of days for which the claimant worked with the petitioner. 3.15 Learned labour Court considered it appropriate to draw such inference on the ground that the petitioner did not place on record original Attendance Register (muster roll) and the Wage Register for relevant period. 3.16 After drawing such inference with regard to respondent's appointment and employment with the petitioner Panchayat and also with regard to the issue related to the condition prescribed under Section 25F viz. service of respondent was not less than 240 days, learned labour Court directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent. 3.17 After considering the evidence of the respondent workman that she was earning about Rs. 200/- per month labour Court denied the relief of backwages. 4. During the hearing of present petition learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the respondent did not place any material on record to establish that she was ever appointed - employed by the petitioner and/or that she had worked for not less than 240 days in preceding 12 months. 200/- per month labour Court denied the relief of backwages. 4. During the hearing of present petition learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the respondent did not place any material on record to establish that she was ever appointed - employed by the petitioner and/or that she had worked for not less than 240 days in preceding 12 months. However learned labour Court proceeded on the presumption and assumption that the respondent was appointed and employed by the petitioner Panchayat and the Court also assumed that she had worked for not less than 240 days in preceding 12 months. He also submitted that in absence of any evidence by the respondent learned labour Court ought not have passed such direction. 5. Learned advocate for the respondent submitted that the petitioner Panchayat failed to place on record original attendance register, pay register and that therefore learned labour Court is justified in drawing inference. He also submitted that the respondent had worked for 10 years and her service was terminated arbitrarily without following procedure prescribed by law and that therefore award does not suffer from any infirmity. 6. I have considered the submissions by learned advocates for the petitioner and the respondent. I have also considered the material on record. 7. Upon examination of the award impugned in present petition, first thing which clearly emerges is that the entire award and the direction passed by the learned labour Court are passed solely and purely on inferences. 7.1 It is pertinent to note and mention that learned labour Court has drawn inference on both counts viz. (a) that the petitioner Panchayat had appointed - employed the respondent and she was employee of the petitioner Panchayat (though the respondent did not place any material whatsoever on record to establish that she was appointed and employed by the petitioner Panchayat); and (b) that the respondent had worked for not less than 240 days in 12 months preceding the date on which her service was terminated. 8. It is pertinent that any material which would even prima facie demonstrate the said two factual aspects was not available on record before the labour Court. 8. It is pertinent that any material which would even prima facie demonstrate the said two factual aspects was not available on record before the labour Court. 8.1 This is not a case where the respondent workman had submitted application seeking production of documents and any order by learned Court directing the petitioner to place material on record of the reference was passed and the petitioner failed to place such material on record. 8.2 It is also pertinent to note that by placing on record before the Court the registers of last 3 years the petitioner Panchayat claimed that the respondent was never engaged in any capacity whatsoever by the petitioner panchayat and she had never worked in any capacity whatsoever with the petitioner Panchayat. However by disregarding said aspect and also by disregarding the fact the respondent herself did not place any material on record nor did she examine any co-employee as her witness to establish that she had served the petitioner at any point of time in any capacity, the learned Court proceeded to presume relevant facts and based its conclusion on such inference and presumption. 8.3 The respondent could have examined any co-workman to atleast establish that she had ever worked with the petitioner Panchayat. However the respondent failed to do so. 9. It is true that the petitioner also did not place any document on record before the learned labour Court. 9.1 Taking said aspect into account the learned labour Court proceeded in the matter by drawing inference against the petitioner Panchayat and only on strength of assumption the Court concluded that the respondent was appointed and employed by the petitioner. The respondent mentioned names of 4 persons and claimed that the said persons were employed after her service was terminated. Any evidence as to whether the said 4 persons were actually appointed and employed by the petitioner Panchayat and in which capacity they were appointed and whether they were appointed after respondent's service was terminated or not, was not proved before learned labour Court by any evidence and on this count also learned labour Court proceeded on presumption and assumption. Any evidence as to whether the said 4 persons were actually appointed and employed by the petitioner Panchayat and in which capacity they were appointed and whether they were appointed after respondent's service was terminated or not, was not proved before learned labour Court by any evidence and on this count also learned labour Court proceeded on presumption and assumption. 9.2 By following such route and procedure learned labour Court recorded finding that the petitioner had committed violation of Section 25F while terminating service of the respondent inasmuch as at the time of termination of the service of the respondent, the petitioner did not pay retrenchment compensation. Though, actual factum of appointment and employment was not proved with any evidence the learned labour Court presumed factum of appointment and that the respondent had worked for 12 months and during the preceding 12 months the respondent had worked for 240 days, which amounts to irregularity in exercising jurisdiction. 9.3 It is pertinent that the learned labour Court also overlooked and brushed aside that it had placed on record registers of last 3 years and from the record of the petitioner Panchayat for last 3 years it was demonstrated that the record/register did not bear and reflect name of the respondent -claimant workman and that therefore her claim that she was employed by and with the petitioner Panchayat is incorrect. 9.4 This aspect also establishes irregularity in exercising jurisdiction. 9.5 As mentioned earlier this Court while admitting the petition did not stay the operation of direction to reinstate the respondent. 10. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that having failed in Appeal petitioner panchayat has reinstated the respondent. The Appeal against the order refusing interim relief against direction to reinstate the respondent has filed and thereafter the petitioner has reinstated the respondent. 11. In this view of the matter, any further discussion with regard to the order directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent is not required at this stage in present order. 11.1 In light of the statement and submission by learned advocate for the petitioner it has emerged that the respondent workman is, in any case, employed by the petitioner, since August 2007 i.e. for last 8 years. Therefore the said direction is not required to be interfered with after passage of 8 to 9 years. 12. 11.1 In light of the statement and submission by learned advocate for the petitioner it has emerged that the respondent workman is, in any case, employed by the petitioner, since August 2007 i.e. for last 8 years. Therefore the said direction is not required to be interfered with after passage of 8 to 9 years. 12. Under the circumstances at this stage this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order directing reinstatement of the respondent. 13. This leaves behind the direction granting continuity of service. 13.1 In light of the foregoing discussion, more particularly in view of the fact that the respondent did not place any material with regard to her appointment - employment and considering the fact that all findings and conclusions as well as directions by the learned labour Court are passed only on presumption, this Court is of the view that the direction granting continuity of service is, in any case, not justified and does not deserve to be sustained. 13.2 Even according to the respondent she was engaged on daily wage basis. 13.3 There is no evidence with regard to the respondent's qualification and therefore there is nothing on record to establish that the respondent possess prescribed qualification for employment with the petitioner panchayat. 14. When above discussed and other relevant aspects are taken into account it emerges that the direction of continuity of service is not justified. Therefore the said direction is set aside and it is clarified that the appointment after rejection of Letters Patent Appeal coupled with the order dated 30.1.2006 would be fresh appointment of the respondent in the category and post where the petitioner appointed her after the interim order dated 30.1.2006. With the aforesaid clarifications and observations the petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Accordingly the petition stands disposed of.