JUDGMENT : Rohit Arya, J. This writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the award dated 13/03/2015 in case No.09/A/I.D.Act/2014 by which the reference made by the Additional Labour Commissioner, Indore vide order dated 30/07/2014 to the following effect: ^D;k Jh ekftn [kku firk Jh Qk:[k [kku dk fu;kstd }kjk fd;k x;k lsok i`FkDdj.k oS| ,oa mfpr gS\ ;fn ugha rks os fdl lgk;rk ds ik= gS ,oa bl laca/k esa lsok fu;kstd dks D;k funsZ'k fn;s tkus pkfg,\* has been answered in the affirmative and against the workman. 2. Counsel for the petitioner contends that statement of claim was filed by petitioner before the Labour Court No.2, Gwalior on 30/09/2014 (Annexure P/2). In the statement of claim, it has been specifically pleaded that the petitioner was working against vacant post of driver, Fire Brigade vehicle with the respondent/employer since October, 2008 and has been discharging his duties to the best of his ability and to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors. He has had an unblamished service record. But, to his surprise, on 10/04/2002, by an oral order, petitioner's services were terminated without any reason, without any notice and without affording opportunity of hearing. It has also been contended that during the period from October, 2008 to 10/04/2012, petitioner has worked for more than 240 days' in a calendar year. As such, he has rendered continuous service within the meaning of section 25B(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 1947 Act). Since, before termination of his employment, the retrenchment compensation was not paid under section 25F of the Act, 1947 and termination is otherwise than by way of disciplinary action. As such, the order of termination tant-amounts to retrenchment, therefore, it is illegal due to non-payment of retrenchment compensation under section 25F of the 1947 Act. 3. It has also been submitted that petitioner had also made efforts by filing an application under RTI Act before the respondent/employer for supply of copy of muster roll and a document in that behalf has been placed before the Labour Court. Copy is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure P/3. The petitioner had also brought on record the certificate dated 30/01/2012 issued by the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Gohad, District Bhind (exhibit P/1) certifying unblamished record of the petitioner with favourable recommendations. Copy is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure P/3. The petitioner had also brought on record the certificate dated 30/01/2012 issued by the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Gohad, District Bhind (exhibit P/1) certifying unblamished record of the petitioner with favourable recommendations. Likewise, another certificate dated 30/01/2012 was issued by the President, Municipal Council, Gohad (exhibit P/2) to the same effect. Petitioner also placed on record photo copies of some extracts of muster rolls from October, 2008 to November, 2008, January 2009, March 2009, May, 2009, October 2009, November 2009, December 2009, January 2010, February 2010, March 2010, May 2010, August 2010, October 2010, November 2010, December 2010, January 2011, February 2011, March 2011 and April, 2014, i.e., exhibits P/7 to P/24 only which he could lay hands from other sources. Petitioner has also prayed before the Labour Court that the respondent/employer be commanded to produce the original muster roll which is in their possession for period from the year 2008 till the date of his oral termination on 10/04/2012, thereby to establish that he had completed 240 days' service in a calendar year. 4. Admittedly, the respondent/employer has not entered appearance, despite service of notice as a result the original muster roll could not be produced before the Labour Court. 5. Petitioner has filed evidence on affidavit under Order 18, Rule 4 CPC. Petitioner has deposed in support of the pleadings that since the year 2008 till the date of his oral termination on 10/04/2012, he had completed 240 days' service in a calendar year. Petitioner has also filed affidavit of one Sumit Bhadoriya under Order 18, Rule 4 CPC who is serving as Peon with the respondent/employer for the last 30 years. He has also deposed that from the year 2008 till April, 2002, the petitioner performed the duties of driver, Fire Brigade vehicle with the respondent/employer. With the aforesaid pleadings and oral and documentary evidence brought on record, the petitioner prayed for declaration that the termination was illegal and petitioner entitled for reinstatement. 6. Labour Court by the impugned award has held that the petitioner since could not establish that he worked 240 days' in a calendar year preceding to the date of retrenchment, therefore, he shall not be treated to be in continuous service with the respondent/employer within the meaning of section 25B of the 1947 Act. 6. Labour Court by the impugned award has held that the petitioner since could not establish that he worked 240 days' in a calendar year preceding to the date of retrenchment, therefore, he shall not be treated to be in continuous service with the respondent/employer within the meaning of section 25B of the 1947 Act. Hence, the provisions of section 25F of the 1947 Act shall have no application. Therefore, the petitioner shall not be liable to be reinstated in service. Accordingly, decided the reference against the workman/petitioner. 7. Assailing the aforesaid award, counsel for the petitioner contends that the Labour Court ought to have considered the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence in possession of the petitioner brought on record. None of the documents so filed particularly, the muster roll extracts, the photo copies whereof filed as exhibits P/7 to P/24 have been considered. As a matter of fact, the original muster rolls were in possession of the respondent/employer. As the employer/respondent chose not to appear despite service of notice, the claim of the petitioner could not have been denied for the reason that the petitioner has failed to establish that he has not completed 240 days' service in a calendar year by evidence. The best evidence was available with the respondent/employer but despite service of notice, chosen not to put in appearance to contest the claim of petitioner, therefore, no adverse conclusion could have been drawn against the petitioner by the Labour Court as aforesaid. 8. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Director, Fisheries Terminal Department v. Bhikumbhai Meghajibhai Chavada, (2010) 1 SCC 47 and a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 2010 (4) MPLJ 212 Naveen Singh Bhadoriya v. State of M.P.,and others to bolster his submission. 9. Per contra, counsel for the respondent has offered no explanation for not having appeared before the Labour Court and justified the impugned award passed. 10. Having heard counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, in the opinion of this Court, the Labour Court ought to have considered the claim of the petitioner on the basis of oral and documentary evidence brought on record as respondent/employer chose not to appear and file its pleadings and documents in its possession. 10. Having heard counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, in the opinion of this Court, the Labour Court ought to have considered the claim of the petitioner on the basis of oral and documentary evidence brought on record as respondent/employer chose not to appear and file its pleadings and documents in its possession. Judgments relied upon by counsel for the petitioner applies on all fours' in the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. In the case of R.M. Yellatti v. Asstt. Executive Engineer, (2006) 1 SCC 106 has held as under: “17. ...However, applying general principles and on reading the aforesaid judgments, we find that this Court has repeatedly taken the view that the burden of proof is on the claimant to show that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. This burden is discharged only upon the workman stepping in the witness box. This burden is discharged upon the workman adducing cogent evidence, both oral and documentary. In cases of termination of services of daily waged earner, there will be no letter of appointment or termination. There will also be no receipt or proof of payment. Thus in most cases, the workman (claimant) can only call upon the employer to produce before the court the nominal muster roll for the given period, the letter of appointment or termination, if any, the wage register, the attendance register etc. Drawing of adverse inference ultimately would depend thereafter on facts of each case.” 12. Relying on the aforesaid judgment in the case of Director, Fisheries Terminal Department (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “17....... The appellant claims that the respondent did not work for 240 days. The respondent was a workman hired on a daily-wage basis. So it is obvious, as this Court pointed out in the above case that he would have difficulty in having access to all the official documents, muster rolls, etc., in connection with his service. He has come forward and deposed, so in our opinion the burden of proof shifts to the appellant employer to prove that he did not complete 240 days of service in the requisite period to constitute continuous service.” 13. He has come forward and deposed, so in our opinion the burden of proof shifts to the appellant employer to prove that he did not complete 240 days of service in the requisite period to constitute continuous service.” 13. Further, the law is well settled that if a party despite in possession of the best evidence has not produced the same adverse inference can be drawn against such a party. Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas, (2004) 8 SCC 195 referred to. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned award dated 13/03/2015 (Annexure P/1) deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, quashed. As the claim of the petitioner is required to be considered afresh, the Labour Court is required to adjudicate the reference. Hence, the case is remanded to the Labour Court with the following directions: (i) the petitioner/workman shall appear before the Labour Court No.2, Gwalior on 08/02/2016; and (ii) The Labour Court after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties shall decide the reference afresh with due advertance to the evidence brought on record through the adjudicatory process. 15. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. 16. Office is directed to send back the original record to the Court below forthwith. Ordered accordingly.