JUDGMENT : SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the award passed by the Labour Court dated 23.04.1998, by means of which, the Labour Court has set aside the order of termination of services of respondent No. 3, Om Prakash Pandey and has directed for his reinstatement along with continuity in service and all consequential benefits arising there from. Additionally, a cost of Rs. 100/- has also been directed to be paid to the workman concerned. 2. The respondent No. 3 had raised industrial dispute, which was referred under section 4-K of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court by the State Government on 24.11.1990 as to whether "the services of Om Prakash Pandey, the workman concerned have been terminated illegally w.e.f. 01.01.1981 and to what benefit the workman would be entitled in case such termination is held as illegal". 3. The case set up by the workman concerned in his written statement is that he was appointed as a 'helper' and worked in the establishment of the employer w.e.f. 01.07.1979 upto 31.12.1980. He was not being given the benefits admissible to a regular employee and therefore, he gave representations, which annoyed the employer and it terminated the services illegally. Even though he approached the employer for work, he was not engaged after 31.12.1980 and no retrenchment compensation was given to him. 4. The employer UPSRTC filed its written statement as well as documentary evidence, in which it alleged that the respondent-workman had been engaged on daily wage basis for one month only as helper by order dated 10.11.1980. This engagement was extended on 29.11.1980 upto 30.12.1980. In terms of the order of engagement, the services of workman was for fixed term and after expiry of term, no further engagement was done. Such termination of engagement on the basis of fixed term employment would not be treated as retrenchment and no retrenchment compensation was therefore given to the workman concerned. Moreover, certain other issues with regard to maintainability of the reference were also raised by UPSRTC. 5. Mr. Such termination of engagement on the basis of fixed term employment would not be treated as retrenchment and no retrenchment compensation was therefore given to the workman concerned. Moreover, certain other issues with regard to maintainability of the reference were also raised by UPSRTC. 5. Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner states that from perusal of the award impugned in this writ petition, it is evident that documentary evidence was filed in support of claim made in the written statement by the employer, which was disregarded by the Labour Court only because no officer of the Corporation appeared to give oral evidence. 6. A perusal of paragraph 11 of the award in question would show that the employer, although did not give any oral evidence, had filed several documents, which the Labour Court has observed would not have helped them to establish their case. Since oral evidence was not given in support of these documents, therefore, they were disregarded, even when the employee had not questioned their veracity or correctness. 7. On the other hand, Labour Court had relied upon the written statement as well as oral evidence of the workman concerned that his engagement was for not for a particular time period as alleged but that he had worked for more than 240 days during the preceding 12 months. The workman concerned did not however produce any documentary evidence with regard to regular appointment at all. The written statement as well as oral evidence of the workman could not have been relied upon as they are only self-serving statements without any documentary proof. No appointment letter, nor wage slips etc. were produced before the Labour Court by the workman concerned. 8. It has been argued that without considering the issues raised in the written statement or documentary evidence produced by the employer that the workman had been engaged only for a fixed period of one month initially and it was later on extended for another one month, the Labour Court has decided the case in favour of the workman. 9. Mr. Amrendra Nath Rai, learned counsel for the respondent however, has tried to contend before this Court that the Labour Court has passed a correct order because the employer did not care to pursue its case before the Labour Court with sufficient diligence. 10. 9. Mr. Amrendra Nath Rai, learned counsel for the respondent however, has tried to contend before this Court that the Labour Court has passed a correct order because the employer did not care to pursue its case before the Labour Court with sufficient diligence. 10. In the counter affidavit, the workman has also placed on record the representation sent by the workman on 03.10.1989 asking for reinstatement on the post of helper on the ground that his termination of service was in violation of sections 6-N, 6-P and 6-Q of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The workman has also filed a letter dated 30th July, 1980 sent by Depot Manager one, T.N. Singh to the Manager (Services) of UPSRTC requesting him to engage the respondent as he was the son of a retired employee of the Corporation and had obtained a Fitter Grade Diploma from ITI. 11. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the UPSRTC, wherein it has disputed the averments made by respondent No. 3 on the ground that respondent No. 3 has not filed any documentary evidence in respect of his appointment/engagement in pursuance of the letter allegedly sent by the Depot Manager. It is also the case of the employer that respondent No. 3 was engaged on fixed term on daily wages in a short term vacancy and there was no evidence of continuous service of 240 days in the last preceding 12 months before his alleged retrenchment as claimed by respondent No. 12. I have gone through the award impugned and I find that the Labour Court has not considered the nature of the engagement of workman concerned despite documentary evidence being produced by UPSRTC to the effect that workman was engaged for fixed term. The Labour Court has also not thought it fit to ask for additional evidence from the workman or even from the employer, which in this case it had jurisdiction to ask for, as has been settled by the Supreme Court in several judgments. In case evidence is not forthcoming, then Labour Court has a jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders calling for records and take additional evidence, which in this case was not done. The award passed by the Labour Court is summary in nature and based on conjecture and surmises. Such an award cannot be upheld by this Court. 13. In case evidence is not forthcoming, then Labour Court has a jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders calling for records and take additional evidence, which in this case was not done. The award passed by the Labour Court is summary in nature and based on conjecture and surmises. Such an award cannot be upheld by this Court. 13. When this writ petition was filed an interim order was granted by this Court on 15.01.1999, wherein this Court had stayed the operation of the award provided that the back wages to the extent of 50 percent payable under the award are deposited with the concerned Labour Court within two months from the date of passing of interim order; a sum equal to wages payable to the workman from the date of the award till the last preceding month is paid to the respondent workman within two months from the date of passing of interim order; and wages at the rate admissible under section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (which is a Central Act) for succeeding months be also paid to workman month by month basis till further orders of this Court. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent workman has filed a counter affidavit to the effect that the interim order granted by this Court was not complied with, but it had also come on record that respondent No. 3 was reinstated and continued to work till his superannuation and was paid salary. 15. The award dated 23.04.1998 is set aside to the extent of the direction being given therein with regard to payment of back wages and consequential benefits. Since the Corporation has allowed reinstatement of workman-respondent No. 3 and he has continued to work with the Corporation till his superannuation, he is entitled to all benefits arising out of such reinstatement from the date of his reinstatement till his superannuation and retiral benefits if any. 16. The writ petition is allowed to this extent.