ORDER : Alok Sharma, J. 1. This petition has been filed challenging the Labour Court's award dated 7-4-2015 in LCR No. 181/1989 whereby the petitioner workman's allegation of illegal termination on 31-1-1988 and claim for reinstatement was rejected. 2. The case of the petitioner workman before the Labour Court was that he was initially appointed in Central Nursery Raraha Uncha Gaon and Sheorana from 26-12-1985 and worked upto 31-1-1988 when he was terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1947'). A dispute raised before the Conciliation Officer having failed and report thereof 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 denied the claim of the workman and submitted that the workman was initially engaged as casual daily wager in May, 1986 and worked till July, 1986. Thereafter he himself abandoned the job. The claim of the workman was dismissed on 22-7-1996. 4. Aggrieved the petitioner filed SBCWP No. 500/1997, which was dismissed on 13-2-2001. DBSAW No. 509/2001 followed and came to be partially allowed on 12-7-2002 with a remand to the Labour Court to consider whether the Forest department was an industry as defined under the Act of 1947 and whether the workman's termination entailed breach of Sections 25G and 25H of the Act of 1947. 5. The Labour Court on reconsideration of the matter following the remand dismissed the petitioner workman's claim on the ground that he failed to prove his continuous employment with the department for 240 days immediately preceding twelve months to his termination and also that the Forest department was not an industry. Hence this petition. 6. Heard. Considered. 7. 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 alleged period from 26-12-1985 to 31-1-1988. In the absence of proof that he had worked for 240 days or more immediately preceding the termination no breach of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 could be found. I do not find any force in the contention of the petitioner's counsel that the department did not produce the full record. In the absence of proof that he had worked for 240 days or more immediately preceding the termination no breach of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 could be found. I do not find any force in the contention of the petitioner's counsel that the department did not produce the full record. It is well settled that 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, (2002)3 SCC 25 was not made out by the petitioner before the Labour Court, the onus did not shift on the respondent department. In that circumstance it was of no avail to the petitioner workman to seek drawing an adverse inference against the respondent department-as counsel for the petitioner urged should have been. 8. The contention of the petitioner's counsel with regard to the respondent department being an industry and not complying with the provisions of 25G and 25H of the Act of 1947 before terminating the service of the workman following the order dated 13-2-2001 in DBSAW No. 509/2001 is of no avail. Firstly, when the workman failed to prove that he had worked for 240 days in the immediate preceding twelve months of his alleged termination the issue of the department being an industry or not was a non sequitur. Secondly, the reference under Section 10 of the Act of 1947 by the State Government was only on the issue of the alleged illegality of the termination of the workman and if so, to what relief the workman was entitled? It is well settled as also reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Oshiar Prasad v. Sudamdih Coal Washery, (2015)4 SCC 71 that the Tribunal only gets jurisdiction to the extent of reference is made to it by the Government. It had been earlier similarly held in the case of Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited v. State of Jharkhand, (2014)1 SCC 536 that the High court, in proceedings arising before it from an award of a Labour Court, could not extend the scope of reference made to the Labour court. It had been earlier similarly held in the case of Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited v. State of Jharkhand, (2014)1 SCC 536 that the High court, in proceedings arising before it from an award of a Labour Court, could not extend the scope of reference made to the Labour court. The reference in the instant case as recorded above was limited to the question of the petitioner workman's alleged illegal termination and consequent relief if so found. That necessarily related to determining whether Section 25F of the Act of 1947 had been contravened or not. In fact a perusal of the claim itself shows that no averment was made by the petitioner workman or grounds agitated on the basis of Section 25G and 25H of the Act of 1947. The Division Bench's directions under its order dated 12-7-2002 was quite obviously per incuriam, without jurisdiction and non binding on the Labour Court. Non address of the aforesaid question does not therefore vitiate the Labour Court's award. 9. Counsel for the petitioner workman has not been able to displace the conclusion/findings of the Labour court either on fact or law. No perversity or patent illegality vitiates the impugned award dated 7-4-2015. There is thus 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 lack of it on record. 10. The petition is without force. Dismissed.