JUDGMENT S M Modak, J. - Labour Court, Bhandara, held termination illegal and directed Forest Department - petitioners - Party No.1 to reinstate the workman - respondent no.1 - Party No.2 and granted him continuity of service. His claim for back wages was not allowed. This decision was taken on Reference [IDA] No. 14 of 2005 on 3rd March,2009. 2. The Forest Department has challenged the correctness of the decision before this Court. When conciliation proceedings have failed, Labour Court started with an inquiry on reference by the Asstt. Commissioner of Labour. Though both the parties filed their pleadings, it is only the workman who gave the evidence. The workman claims continuous service from 01st July,2000 till the date of termination of service illegally, for a continuous period of more than 240 days in a year. On the other hand, the Forest Department claims intermittent service for the period from 01st July,2000 to 31st August,2004 and that too for a few days during those years. Furthermore, they plead that the employment was not permanent, but only limited on daily wages for the jobs under the Employment Guarantee Scheme. 3. Forest Department being an industry or not is also disputed. The activities of Forest Department include plantation, sale of forest produce, maintenance of holiday resorts and catering to services to tourists, whereas Forest Department pleads that the workman is connected only to the job of plantation of trees. ISSUES 4. After evidence, Labour Court finds favour with the workman as mentioned above. So, the issues before me are whether [a] the Party No.2 is a "Workman", [b] Party No.1 is an "Industry", and [c] Party No.1 worked permanently for a continuous period of one year, or whether his services are terminated illegally. There is no prayer for regularization. Hence, there is no occasion for this Court to make a comment on that. 5. I have heard Shri N. R. Patil, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader, for the petitioners and Ms. R. V. Kalia, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent no.2. Accordingly, I have closed the matter for orders. The matter was re-listed and I have heard the learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader Shri N. R. Patil and Shri R.A. Gupte, learned counsel for respondent no1. 6. I have gone through the record of the case and perused the grounds of objection taken in the petition. Govt. Pleader for respondent no.2. Accordingly, I have closed the matter for orders. The matter was re-listed and I have heard the learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader Shri N. R. Patil and Shri R.A. Gupte, learned counsel for respondent no1. 6. I have gone through the record of the case and perused the grounds of objection taken in the petition. On going through the record and judgment, I do not find any perversity in the judgment. In a particular case, it may happen that there is absolutely no evidence. Then, it can be said that the judgment is perverse. There may be a dispute about sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidence. It is a settled law that when there is some evidence, the High Court should not interfere in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I will give the reasons for these observations. Prior to that, some of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947, need to be considered. PROVISIONS OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT 7. The proceedings before the Labour Court were started on a reference made by the Asstt. Labour Commissioner. The workman, respondent no.1, moved the said Authority. Section 2 (s) of the said Act gives the meaning of the word "Workman.". The word "retrenchment" is clarified in Section 2 (oo) of the said Act. It says about termination plainly by the employer for any reason. There are certain exceptions. Admittedly, they are not applicable in this case. 8. Petitioners say about service intermittently, whereas the workman says about continuous service and termination not as per the law. So, the grievance of the workman is that he was retrenched without following the procedure. Section 25F and Section 25G of the said Act lay down the condition to be followed prior to retrenchment and the procedure for retrenchment respectively. Prior to insisting upon those formalities, a workman has to satisfy the ingredients of Section 25B of the said Act relating to continuous service. If a workman is working in a job attached to an industry other than mine, then he must work for 240 days in a preceding one year in order to come within the purview of "continuous service" [Section 25B (2) (a) (ii) of the said Act]. If a workman is working in a job attached to an industry other than mine, then he must work for 240 days in a preceding one year in order to come within the purview of "continuous service" [Section 25B (2) (a) (ii) of the said Act]. The sum and substance of petitioners'' case is that there is no need to comply with the conditions mentioned in Section 25F and there is no need to follow the procedure laid down under Section 25G of the said Act, because neither the workman has worked for a continuous period of 240 days nor he has adduced evidence. 9. No doubt, the provisions of Evidence Act are not applicable strictly, but the principles do apply. On the background of these legal provisions, I have gone through the evidence of the workman. EVIDENCE 10. As said above, the petitioners have restricted themselves in cross-examining the workman. They have neither adduced any oral evidence nor any documentary evidence. The litigant, who wants the Court to believe him, should adduce evidence. No doubt, one can expect the workman to give documentary evidence about continuous service. Normally, such documentary evidence is available with the employer. When the petitioners have denied about continuity in service, it cannot be expected from them to adduce such documentary evidence. Furthermore, even they have not produced any documentary evidence [in the form of muster or otherwise] to show intermittent service. So, I find every reason to believe the workman. Merely because the workman has admitted the signature on one application, it does not prove the case of the petitioners. There is a reference of "Rozandari" in the application. 11. Workman claims that he was involved in the work of plantation generally and not under any scheme, whereas Forest Department claims that work was undertaken under the Employment Guarantee Scheme. But, the fact that the workman worked is not disputed. Labour Court held that Forest Department failed to prove that work under the Employment Guarantee Scheme comes under the meaning of "Industry." These observations are on the basis of failure of giving an evidence on behalf of Forest Department. So, adverse inference has to be drawn against them. Labour Court has rightly decided the same. Ultimately, Court can decide the issues on the basis of available evidence and cannot decide them on the basis of unproved pleadings. So, adverse inference has to be drawn against them. Labour Court has rightly decided the same. Ultimately, Court can decide the issues on the basis of available evidence and cannot decide them on the basis of unproved pleadings. So, certainly, respondent no.1 is a workman who worked for a continuous period for 240 days in an industry and as such his grievances are amenable to be decided by the Labour Court. 12. On the background of these factual observations, admittedly, the workman was not given one month''s notice prior to termination or notice pay was given given to him. Furthermore, it cannot be expected from petitioners to follow the procedure for retrenchment laid down under Section 25G of the said Act. 13. Learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the petitioners could not point out to me any explanation given for not production of the record before the Labour Court. As said above, it is a case of having some evidence. Labour Court found the affidavit of workman sufficient in the set of facts mentioned above. Ultimately, in which case, the sole affidavit of the workman is to be believed or not is a question of fact. I agree with the finding given by the Labour Court. Had it been the fact that the petitioners have given evidence through some witness, question could have been different. The averments in the pleadings have remained only the pleadings of the petitioners and they have failed to prove them by adducing the evidence. So I do not find any substance in the submission made on behalf of the petitioners. No interference is warranted. 14. Learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for petitioners placed before me the development after passing of the impugned order. In the set of these facts, if the petitioners want, they can terminate the services of the respondent no.1 if the case falls under Section 2 (oo) of the said Act for retrenchment and that too if the conditions of Section 25F of the said Act are fulfilled and that too by following the procedure under Section 25G of the said Act. Continuity in service for 240 days in a preceding year is a criteria. These observations are made in the context of prayers made before the Labour Court. The workman might be attending the duty or not. If he has to ask for regularization, he will have to prove his case. 15. Continuity in service for 240 days in a preceding year is a criteria. These observations are made in the context of prayers made before the Labour Court. The workman might be attending the duty or not. If he has to ask for regularization, he will have to prove his case. 15. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of. No orders as to costs.