ORDER : SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. 1. The petitioners in all the writ petitions have assailed the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jaipur. All the awards related to workmen who were all stated to have been removed on the same day i.e. 30.08.2006 and who were all working in similar capacity with the respondent. The awards have been passed on the same day i.e. 18.05.2015 by depicting the same facts and therefore all the writ petitions assailing the awards passed in the references have been heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the rejection of their reference and claim made before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court essentially on a sole ground which is common in all the cases. The main argument which has been raised by the petitioners' counsel is that while deciding the dispute the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court has held that the petitioner-workman could not prove from the documents that he had completed 240 days in the immediate preceding year before the date of his termination i.e. 30.08.2006. Learned counsel submits that all the workmen had appeared in the witness box and stated on affidavit that they had worked for more than 240 days in the preceding year and had actually been working with the respondents for the period between 3 years to 4 years. If we take the case of Ram Prasad, in that case the claimant has claimed that he was working since 25.05.2003 with the respondent. Similarly in other cases, the workmen had claimed that they had been working since 2003 of course from different dates. 3. Learned counsel submits that apart from having stated in the witness box, even during the conciliation proceedings, the respondents reply reflected that the petitioners had worked for more than 240 days. However in the reply it was mentioned that the muster rolls were prepared and attendance of the workman was being noted. In view thereof, an application was moved before the Labour Court praying for calling the record from the respondents. Vide order dated 23.09.2010, the Labour Court directed the respondents to produce the muster rolls, attendance register of the workmen or may file an affidavit of the concerned Officer relating to this said attendance register or muster rolls. In view thereof, an application was moved before the Labour Court praying for calling the record from the respondents. Vide order dated 23.09.2010, the Labour Court directed the respondents to produce the muster rolls, attendance register of the workmen or may file an affidavit of the concerned Officer relating to this said attendance register or muster rolls. It is the case of the petitioner that the in spite of the said order, record was not produced nor any affidavit relating to the record was filed by the management respondents. In spite of the fact that on affidavit, the petitioner had claimed that he had worked for more than 240 days, without adverting to the said order dated 23.09.2010, the Labour Court has proceeded to pass and award rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the entire onus of proving that the petitioners had worked more than 240 days lies on the workmen and the documents which he had produced gave two different versions of the number of days and therefore provisions of 25-F were held to be not applicable on the workmen. 4. Learned counsel relies on the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of reported in (2006) 1 SCC 106 : R.M. Yellaty v. Assistant Executive Engineer wherein the Apex Court held that while initially the burden of proof is on the petitioner workman. However, the same shifts upon the demand having been raised of producing documents available with the employer and if in the rebuttal the management does not produce the documents in spite of the directions and in the witness box the concerned workman has also stated that he has worked more than 240 days a different view cannot be adopted and it cannot be said that the workman has not completed 240 days in the preceding calendar years before the date of termination. Learned counsel also relies on another judgment reported in (2007) 4 SCC 94 : M/s. Sriram Industrial Enterprises Ltd. v. Mahak Singh & Ors. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that as it was the duty of the petitioner to have proved that he completed 240 days in a preceding year. Learned counsel also relies on another judgment reported in (2007) 4 SCC 94 : M/s. Sriram Industrial Enterprises Ltd. v. Mahak Singh & Ors. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that as it was the duty of the petitioner to have proved that he completed 240 days in a preceding year. That apart learned counsel submits that the petitioner were casual workman even before the Conciliation Officer that the management had shown that the petitioner had not worked more than 240 days and for long period, the petitioner had not been working and his work was being taken from him in intervals. She supports the judgment passed by the Labour Court cum Industrial Tribunal dated 18.05.2015. 6. Having heard both the counsels, I find that when passing the award dated 18.05.2015. Learned Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jaipur has failed to take notice of the earlier order passed by the Labour Court dated 23.09.2010 whereby the record has been directed to be produced relating to the muster rolls and the attendance register. There has been default on the part of the respondents for which they could not have been given any benefit. The burden of proof shifted with the directions issued by the Labour Court dated 23.09.2010. In the Judgment quoted (supra), the Apex Court has observed as under:- "18. Now applying the above decision to the facts of the present case, we find that the workman herein had stepped in the witness box. He had called upon the management to produce the nominal muster rolls for the period commencing from 22.11.1988 to 20.6.1994. This period is the period borne out by the certificate (Ex.W1) issued by the former Asstt. Executive Engineer. The evidence in rebuttal from the side of the management needs to be noticed. The management produced five nominal muster rolls (NMRs), out of which 3 NMRs, Ex.M1, Ex.M2 and Ex.M3, did not even relate to the concerned period. The relevant NMRs produced by the management were Ex.M4 and Ex.M5, which indicated that the workmen had worked for 43 days during the period 21.1.1994 to 20.2.1994 and 21.3.1994 to 20.4.1994 respectively. There is no explanation from the side of the management as to why for the remaining period the nominal muster rolls were not produced. The labour court has rightly held that there is nothing to disbelieve the certificate (Ex.W1). There is no explanation from the side of the management as to why for the remaining period the nominal muster rolls were not produced. The labour court has rightly held that there is nothing to disbelieve the certificate (Ex.W1). The High Court in its impugned judgment has not given reasons for discarding the said certificate. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the division bench of the High Court ought not to have interfered with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the labour court and confirmed by the learned single judge vide order dated 7.6.2000 in writ petition No. 17636 of 2000. This is not, therefore, a case where the allegations of the workman are founded merely on an affidavit. He has produced cogent evidence in support of his case. The workman was working in SD-1, Athani and Ex.W1 was issued by the former Asstt. Executive Engineer, Hipparagi Dam Construction Division No. 1, Athani-591304. In the present case, the defence of the management was that although Ex.W1 refers to the period 22.11.1988 to 20.6.1994, the workman had not worked as a daily wager on all days during that period. If so, the management was duty bound to produce before the labour court the nominal muster rolls for the relevant period, particularly when it was summoned to do so. We are not placing this judgment on the shifting of the burden. We are not placing this case on drawing of adverse inference. In the present case, we are of the view that the workman had stepped in the witness box and his case that he had worked for 240 days in a given year was supported by the certificate (Ex.W1). In the circumstances, the division bench of the High Court had erred in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact. Para 19. Before concluding, we would like to make an observation with regard to cases concerning retrenchment/termination of services of daily waged earners, particularly those who are appointed to work in Government departments. Daily waged earners are not regular employees. They are not given letters of appointments. They are not given letters of termination. They are not given any written document which they could produce as proof of receipt of wages. Their muster rolls are maintained in loose sheets. Daily waged earners are not regular employees. They are not given letters of appointments. They are not given letters of termination. They are not given any written document which they could produce as proof of receipt of wages. Their muster rolls are maintained in loose sheets. Even in cases, where registers are maintained by the Government departments, the officers/clerks making entries do not put their signatures. Even where signatures of clerks appear, the entries are not countersigned or certified by the appointing authorities. In such cases, we are of the view that the State Governments should take steps to maintain proper records of the services rendered by the daily wagers; that these records should be signed by the competent designated officers and that at the time of termination, the concerned designated officers should give certificates of the number of days which the labourer/daily wager has worked. This system will obviate litigation's and pecuniary liability for the Government." 7. The power of judicial review as noted above by the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court therefore it allows the Labour Court to draw inference in terms of the affidavit filed by the workman that he had been working continuously for more than 240 days before his termination of the last preceding calendar year as the respondents have failed to produce the muster rolls before the Labour Court while they have admitted before the Conciliation Officer that such documents were existing with them. 8. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, which I respectfully follow, the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jaipur dated 18.05.2015 in all the above writ petitions are set aside. Since the workman had worked more than 3 years and had raised the dispute immediately thereafter, they are entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service with full back wages. The order shall be now complied with within a period of three months form the date of submission of a certified copy of this order. 9. The writ petitions are allowed. No costs.