ORDER : 1. The employer-R.S.R.T.C. has filed the present writ petition challenging the award dated 23rd May, 2017 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-labour Court, Alwar. 2. Brief facts of the case are that original workman, Banwari Lal Sain, who was working as Conductor in R.S.R.T.C., Alwar Depot, was removed from service by an order dated 31st March, 1983. 3. The Industrial dispute was raised by making a reference by the State Government vide order dated 14th October, 1997 and the term of reference was as under:- ^^D;k Jfed cuokjh yky lSu iq= izrki flag lSu] ifjpkyd dks eq[; izcU/kd jktLFkku jkT; iFk ifjogu fuxe vyoj vkxkj vyoj }kjk fcuk vkjksi i= fn;s] fcuk tkap djk;s rFkk fcuk Li"Vhdj.k dk volj fn;s fnuakd 31-03-83 ls lsok eqDr fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gS \ ;fn ugha rks Jfed fdl jkgr dks ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS \^^ 4. It was pleaded in the claim that workman was employed on 21st April, 1982 and he continuously worked upto 30th March, 1983, and on 31st March, 1983 while carrying out, the inspection of the bus, the Inspecting Team found that 3 passengers were travelling without ticket and the Inspecting Team had demanded Rs.1000/- in the garb of checking the bus and when the workman did not satisfy the demand, a remark was made in the way bill and on 31st March, 1983 itself, he was removed from service. It was pleaded that the termination of the services was in fact retrenchment as no enquiry was conducted and since petitioner had completed 240 days, no procedure of notice or paying compensation was followed as per requirement of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was also pleaded that while terminating the services of the workman, without preparation of seniority list, junior persons were retained in service and workman was removed from service. 5. The Industrial Tribunal in the impugned award dated 23rd May, 2017 has found that the workman had not completed 240 days and as such, there was no requirement of following provisions of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act and as such, the first ground raised by the workman of violation of Section 25(F) of the Act, was rejected by the Industrial Tribunal. 6. 6. The Industrial Tribunal has found that the junior persons to the workman were retained in service and without maintaining proper list of employees, services of the workman were wrongly terminated in violation of Section of Section 25(G) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It has come on record that the workman during pendency of the industrial dispute, expired on 10th June, 2007. The labour Court has declared the termination of services of the original workman as unjustified & illegal and has awarded Rs.1 lac in favour of wife of the workman, Smt. Dropadi Devi. The said amount has been ordered to be paid after publication of the award within a period of two months and further interest of 9% per annum has also been ordered to be paid on the quantified amount of Rs. 1 lac. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner-employer submits that the finding of the labour Court in respect of violation of Section 25(G) and (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act is perverse, which requires interference by this Court. 8. The learned counsel submits that the burden of proof was wrongly shifted on them of not producing any document with respect to persons who were employed after termination of services of the workman. The learned counsel submits that it was duty of the workman to produce the relevant record and in absence of production of same, the liability could not have been fastened on the employer. 9. The learned counsel has submitted that the workman was removed from service not on account of the carrying passengers without ticket but on account of his unsuitability in the job. The counsel submits that looking to the working of the workman of only 110 days, even the compensation of Rs.1 lac in lieu of reinstatement, is also not justified. The learned counsel further submits that the labour Court has gone beyond its power to award the compensation as the reference was confined only to declare the termination as valid & legal or not and relief in form of compensation in lieu of reinstatement was not warranted as per the scope of reference, which was made by the State Government. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the facts of the present case. 11. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the facts of the present case. 11. In the opinion of the Court, the labour Court has not committed any illegality in passing the award of granting compensation of Rs. 1 lac with interest to the widow of the workman. The labour Court has recorded a finding that direction was given to the employer to produce the record relating to appointment of persons who were employed after termination of service of the workman. The direction of the labour Court to produce the record was not complied with and as such, adverse inference was drawn by the labour Court. The labour Court has also recorded a finding that termination of services of the workman was not on account of carrying the passengers without ticket but it was on account of non-requirement of the workman due to absence of work. The labour Court has also recorded a finding that termination of services of the workman was not on account of carrying the passengers without ticket but it was on account of non-requirement of the workman due to absence of work. It would be appropriate to quote para 17 of the award, which reads as under:- ^^17- izkFkhZ ds fuosnu Ikj U;k;ky; }kjk fnuakd 24-09-99 dks vkns’k fn;k x;k fd izkFkhZ dh lsok eqfDr ds ckn yxk, x, vkSj gVk, x, ifjpkydksa ds laca/k esa nLrkost is’k djs ysfdu U;k;ky; ds vkns’k ds ckotwn vizkFkhZ us dksbZ nLrksot is’k ugha fd;kA vr% foijhr vo/kkj.kk vizkFkhZ ds fo:) fy;s tkus ds Ik;kZIr vk/kkj gS fd izkFkhZ dh lsok eqfDr ds le; izkFkhZ ls dfu"B Jfed dk;Zjr FksA izkFkhZ dh lsok eqfDr dk;Z dh vko’;drk ugha gksus ds vk/kkj ij djuk vizkFkhZ us Lohdkj fd;k gSA rhu lokjh fcuk fVfdV ys tkus ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dks lsokeqDr ugha djuk vizkFkhZ us ekuk gSA dk;Z dh vko’;drk ugha gksus ij /kkjk 25 ¼ G ½ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds vuqlkj dfu"B Jfed dh gh NaVuh }kjk lsok eqfDr dh tk ldrh gSA exj bl izdj.k esa izkFkhZ ls dfu"B Jfed dk;Zjr jgrs gq, Hkh ofj"B Jfed izkFkhZ dh dk;Z dh vko’;drk ugha gksus dk cgkuk cukdj lsok eqfDr dh gSA izkFkhZ dk lsok eqfDr ls iwoZ ds ekg ekpZ] 1983 esa 28 fnu dk dke djuk vizkFkhZ ds vfHkopu o lk{; ls lkfcr gSA blfy, izkFkhZ dh lsok eqfDr dk;Z dh vko’;drk ugha gksus ds vk/kkj ij] /kkjk 25 ¼ G ½ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa ds mYya?ku esa NaVuh }kjk fd;k tkuk izkFkhZ lkfcr djus esa lQy jgk gSA 18- izkFkhZ us nLrkost izn’kZ W 1 ls ;g Hkh lkfcr fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ dk lsok eqfDr ds ckn u;s ifjpkykdksa dh fu;qfDr dh Fkh] bl rF; dk [k.Mu vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls ugha fd;k x;k gSA NaVuh ds ckn u;h fu;qfDr ds le; Hkh izkFkhZ dks lsok esa ysus dk volj ugha fn;k x;k] ;g rF; izkFkhZ lkfcr djus esa lQy jgk gSA blfy, vizkFkhZ }kjk /kkjk 25 ¼ H ½ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfue ds izko/kkuksa dk mYya?ku djuk Hkh lkfcr gSA^^ 12. The labour Court has relied upon the document Ex.W-1, which was produced by the workman where the employees/conductors were appointed after termination of the services and the workman was not offered any employment when new recruitment was made. The labour Court has recorded a finding that there has been violation of Section 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act in view of the documentary evidence filed as Ex.W-1 by the workman. 13. The Court finds that the labour Court has given its finding on the basis of evidence produced before it and no perversity can be found in the reasoning given by the labour Court treating the action of the employer to be in violation of Section 25(G) & (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 14. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the term of reference was only confined to declare the termination as valid or not, the Court finds that in the term of reference itself, it has been provided that what relief can be granted to the workman in case, the termination order is found to be illegal. The labour Court considering the fact that workman has expired has granted compensation to the wife of the workman and as such, no illegality can be found. If it has come on record that workman has expired during pendency of litigation, the legal representatives are entitled for suitable relief and as such, the labour Court has granted compensation of Rs.1 lac to the widow. 15. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount of compensation is on higher side as the workman had worked only for 110 days, suffice it to say that award has been passed on anvail of violation of Section 25(G) & (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act and once the labour Court found that Section 25(G) & (H) has been violated, the working days of a workman are not relevant consideration for deciding the quantum of compensation. 16. The Court finds no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.