JUDGMENT : Mr. Sanjav Yadav, J. 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is finally heard. 2. Petition is directed against the Award passed by the Labour Court, directing reinstatement of respondent without back wages. 3. The labour Court was in seisin with the following industrial dispute referred to it for adjudication by the appropriate Government vide communication dated 09.04.2010: "Whether the termination of the services of Shri Kishore Singh Yadav s/o Late Ramcharan Yadav worked in the organization continuously for 240 days ? If yes then whether his termination from service is legal and proper ? If not then for what relief he is entitled for and what directions should be given to the employer ?" 4. The dispute was raised by the respondent inter alia on the averments that he was appointed on the vacant and permanent post of Security Guard. He worked under the petitioner no.2 at various seats. He was getting Rs.1823/- per month. His services were terminated vide 'oral' order dated 20.12.2000. Prior to terminate his services he was not issued any show cause notice nor he was paid any retrenchment compensation. He has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. He was assured by the petitioner for re-engagement but he was never reinstated. The person appointed with him have been reinstated and still working and have been regularized and getting salary more than Rs.4000/-. It has also been stated that the petitioners' organization is an Industry as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act. Thus he has praued that the termination of the petitioner may be declared as illegal and he may be directed to be reinstated with full back wages. 5. The petitioner denied the claim. It was stated that the workman used to be appointed as per the work availability and sanction, intermittently in June 1984, August, June 1986, February 1987, November 1988 for few days. It was stated that the respondent himself left the job and did not work. It was further denied that he continuously worked from 01.11.1983 to 20.12.2000. It was urged that since the respondent did not work for more than 240 days in the preceding calendar months for the date of the alleged termination. It was contended that the petitioner/respondent is an Industry. 6. It was further denied that he continuously worked from 01.11.1983 to 20.12.2000. It was urged that since the respondent did not work for more than 240 days in the preceding calendar months for the date of the alleged termination. It was contended that the petitioner/respondent is an Industry. 6. The labour Court on a finding that the respondent (present petition) despite the direction on 12.12.2011 did not produce the relevant record viz.,-drew the adverse inference against the present petitioner and by observing that no retrenchment compensation was paid, held the termination illegal and directed for reinstatement. ^^v& vkosnd ds gkftjh i=d fnukad 01-11- 1983 ls 20 -12-2000 rdA c& vkosnd ds osru i=d 01-11- 1983 ls 20 -12-2000 rdA** 7. There being no denial of the fact that the application for production of document was allowed but the document sought for were not produced. This fact is admitted by the petitioner witness. Shri N. K. Sharma who in paragraph 3 stated that: ^^3- ;g ckr lgh gS fd gekjs }kjk U;k;ky; ds funsZ'kkuqlkj lEiw.kZ nLrkost izdj.k esa izLrqr ugha fd;s x;s Lor% dgk fd izkFkhZ us ftrus fnu gekjs ;gkWa dk;Z fd;k gS mrus fnu dk geus eLVj jksy izdj.k esa izLrqr fd;k gSA 4- ;g dguk xyr gS fd gekjs ;gkWa dStqvy yscj ds gkftjh i=d ,oa osru i=d lqjf{kr j[ks tkrs gS ;g ckr lgh gS fd gekjs }kjk izkFkhZ ls lacaf/kr leLr nLrkost izdj.k esa izLrqr ugha fd;s x;s gSA Lor% dgk fd U;k;ky; }kjk pkgh xbZ vof/k ds leLr nLrkost gekjs }kjk is'k ugha fd;s x;s gSA** 8. Eventually labour Court found that the Workman having workout for more than 240 days preceding the termination was removed without any rhyme or reason and without adhering to the stipulations contained in Section 25 F of the 1947 Act, accordingly held it to be bad. 9. It is held in Deep Chandra v. State of U. P. And another: (2001) 10 SCC 606 : where in non compliance of Section 25 F leads to termination bad- "2- The High Court approached the matter rather strangely as it went at a tangent to consider not only whether the casual worker's services can be put to an end to but if the award made by the Labour Court would make him permanent employee, so on and so forth. The High Court lost sight of the point in issue that is, when an employee had put in service for more than 240 days in each year for several years whether his services can be put to an end to without following the procedure prescribed under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. If there has been violation thereof such an employee will have to be reinstated in his original service on the same terms and conditions in which he was working earlier. If this is the position in law, we fail to understand as to how the High Court could have interfered with the award made by the Labour Court. We set aside the order made by the High Court and restore the award made by the Labour Court. The appeal is allowed accordingly." 10. The conclusion arrived at by the labour court when tested on the anvil of the material on record cannot be faulted with. 11. The petitioner has also raised the ground that against the termination in the year 2000, the workman sought reference by raising the dispute after 12 years, the labout Court was not justified in entertaining a belated dispute, as no dispute survived after long years. The contention though attractive, would have carried the weight has it been raised before the appropriate government or the labour Court. In that case the petitioner would have been benefited from the decision in Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department and another: (2015) 15 SCC 1. The petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the issue for the first time in the High Court. Therefore, the contention that the relief claimed by the workman must suffer due to laches and delay. 12. For these reasons, the petition must fail. Accordingly, dismissed. No costs.