JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 21-10-2016. However, in view of the grounds taken in the application, duly supported by the affidavit, the restoration application (MCC 720/2016) is allowed. Order dated 21.10.2016, dismissing the petition in non-prosecution, is recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original number. 2. This petition is instituted against the Award dated 01.08.2011 rendered by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haridwar in Adjudication Case no.369 of 2009 (Old No.70/2007). 3. Key facts, necessary for adjudication to this petition, are that the respondent/workman was engaged as Beldar. He worked as such from 01.01.1989 to 01.08.1991. He was retrenched from the service on 01.08.1991. According to the respondent, he had completed more than 240 days in a calendar year with the employer and thus, he could not be retrenched as per the provisions of Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. The workman raised the industrial dispute and the matter was referred to the labour court only on following point:- “Whether the termination of the above noted Workman by the Employer was justified or/and legal. If not, the Workman is entitled to get what relief/benefits.” 5. Learned Labour Court rendered the award in favour of the workman on 01.08.2011 by declaring the retrenchment as illegal. It was directed that the workman would be deemed to be treated in service throughout but he shall not be entitled to get any back-wages. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the employer. 6. Heard learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material available on record. 7. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of State of U.P., submits that the experience certificate has wrongly been issued by Assistant Engineer. She further contended that the workman/respondent had never completed 240 days. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for the workman, has supported the award. 9. Mr. Ved Vart Saini, Prayakchak who appeared on behalf of the employer, has initially denied that the workman/respondent is working with the petitioner. Later on, he stated that workman/respondent has not completed 240 days. However, on the basis of certificate issued by Assistant Engineer, the workman had worked since January, 1990 to June, 1991 as a Beldar in the Department. 10. Workman/respondent also appeared before the Labour court. Later on, he stated that workman/respondent has not completed 240 days. However, on the basis of certificate issued by Assistant Engineer, the workman had worked since January, 1990 to June, 1991 as a Beldar in the Department. 10. Workman/respondent also appeared before the Labour court. According to him, he worked up to 30.07.1991 w.e.f. 01.01.1989 as Beldar and he had worked for more than 240 days. He was neither given any notice nor any compensation was paid to him. Workman/respondent has also moved an application for summoning the muster rolls. The employer was directed by Labour Court on 07.03.2011 to produce the documents. 11. The fact of the matter is that the employer has not filed the documents. Workman/respondent had proved his case before Labour Court, on the basis of certificate issued by Assistant Engineer of the department, that he had worked for more than 240 days. Therefore, he could not be retrenched without following the provisions under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Workman/respondent had worked under Assistant Engineer of the department. An Assistant Engineer is the competent authority to issue the certificate. No notice has been issued to Assistant Engineer by the Employer, calling upon him, that under what authority, he had issued the certificate in favour of the workman/respondent. 12. In view of above, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned award rendered by the Labour Court. The petition is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.