JUDGMENT : ALOK SHARMA, J. 1. This petition has been filed challenging the Labour Court's award dated 12-3-2014 in LCR No.290/1998 whereby the petitioner workman's allegation of illegal termination on 31-12-1993 and claim for reinstatement was rejected. 2. The case of the petitioner workman before the Labour Court was that he was initially appointed on the post of Cattle guard from 1-6-1986 and worked up-to 31-12-1993 when he was terminated without complying with the provisions, particularly Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter `the Act of 1947'). A dispute raised before the Conciliation Officer having failed and a failure report received, the State Government referred the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court. A claim for reinstatement was thereupon made in the allegations detailed above. 3. The department was proceeded ex-parte since it failed to contest the case. 4. The Labour Court on the evidence before it dismissed the petitioner workman's claim petition. Hence this petition. 5. Heard. Considered. 6. A perusal of the impugned award indicates that the Labour Court considering the evidence on record has found that the petitioner workman failed to prove his employment with the department for the period from 1-6-1986 to 31-12-1993 or at all as the workman except filing his self-serving affidavit did not file any documentary evidence of his purported employment with the respondent department. The conclusion of the Labour Court finds support in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani [ (2002)3 SCC 25 ] wherein it was held that it was for the workman to prove that he was in continuous employment within the meaning of Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with an employer, prior to the alleged termination in contravention of Section 25F or other provisions of the Act of 1947. The Labour Court therefore held that the petitioner workman failed to prove either appointment with the department or that he had continuously worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months with the department immediately prior to her alleged termination. 7. I do not find any force in the contention of the petitioner's counsel that as the respondent department having remained ex-parte an award in favour of the workman ought to have been passed on the basis of his affidavit in evidence remaining uncontroverted. 7. I do not find any force in the contention of the petitioner's counsel that as the respondent department having remained ex-parte an award in favour of the workman ought to have been passed on the basis of his affidavit in evidence remaining uncontroverted. It is well settled the absence or weakness of defence cannot by itself result in a decree/ award. The plaintiff or the applicant workman, as the case may be, has to prove his case. Where even a prima facie case in terms of the law laid down by the Apex court in the case of Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (supra) was not made out by the petitioner before the Labour Court, the onus did not shift on the respondent department. In that circumstance its remaining ex parte and not leading defence evidence was of no avail to the petitioner workman on any count including that of drawing an adverse inference against the respondent department-as counsel for the petitioner urged should have been. 8. Counsel for the petitioner workman has not been able to displace the conclusion/ findings of the Labour court either on fact or law. In the circumstances, there is no occasion for this court to invoke its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and interfere with a well considered and reasoned award founded upon a fair and just evaluation of the petitioner workman's evidence on record. 9. The petition is without force. Dismissed.