ORDER : Sangeeta Chandra, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who is the workman challenging the award dated 05.04.2007 in adjudication case No. 47 of 2006. It is the case of the petitioner as pleaded in the writ petition that he had applied for being appointed as conductor in the U.P.S.R.T.C. hereinafter referred to as the employer and the Assistant Regional Manager asked the petitioner to submit all relevant documents on 29.09.1973 for enabling the employer to complete the personal file of the workman. The petitioner was thereafter asked to deposit security money of Rs. 200/-which he did on 11.10.1973 and on 16.10.1973 he was sent for training for seven days before being appointed as Conductor. The petitioner was appointed as Conductor on 04.11.1973 at Allahabad Depot. He continued to work as Conductor for more than 240 days in a year and, therefore, was entitled for protection under Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. On one occasion i.e. on 19.10.1974 while the petitioner was on duty, his bus was checked and out of 61 passengers, 21 passengers were found to be traveling without ticket, a show cause notice was issued on him on 21.10.1974 and the petitioner submitted his reply on 28.10.1974. The reply of the petitioner was duly considered and he was awarded minor punishment of forfeiture of three months Good Conduct Allowance. It has been pleaded that it is apparent from the punishment order dated 16.12.1974 that the petitioner was in continuous service of the corporation from 04.11.1973 at least up to 16.12.1974. It is the case of the petitioner also that from time to time he had deposited the fare that he had collected while services as Conductor on City Bus Service at Allahabad and three such receipts dated 03.06.1974, 03.03.1975 and 27.04.1975 were submitted as Exhibits in the list of documents before the opposite party No. 2 to substantiate his claim that he had been continuously working with the employer and was entitled for benefit of Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act but without following the procedure as prescribed under the Act his services were terminated orally w.e.f. 30.06.1975. 2. It has been submitted that against the oral termination order, the petitioner approached the Regional Manager by way of representation on 16.07.1975 which was rejected on 16.12.1977 as being time barred. 2. It has been submitted that against the oral termination order, the petitioner approached the Regional Manager by way of representation on 16.07.1975 which was rejected on 16.12.1977 as being time barred. The petitioner thereafter, preferred an appeal before the Deputy General Manager Eastern Zone U.P.S.R.T.C on 29.12.1977 and moved a representation on 31.05.1979 before the Deputy Chief Manager Eastern Zone, Varanasi requesting for decision on appeal and for reinstatement. As the employer did not give any notice of orders passed on his representation and appeal, he again moved an application to the Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. Allahabad which was rejected on 02.08.1979 by non speaking order. Information was derived of such order by the petitioner on 24.11.1979. Since the petitioner's appeal was not being decided, the petitioner again represented on 23.07.2003 and, thereafter, approached this Court by filing the Writ Petition No. 38726 of 2003. The said writ petition was dismissed on 28.07.2004 by this Court at Allahabad directing the petitioner to approach the Labor Court in the matter. The petitioner thereafter, filed a claim petition before the Deputy Labor Commissioner, Lucknow who sent his recommendation to the Government and Reference under Section 4K of the Act was made on 25.01.2006. The Reference as framed by the Government was to the effect "whether the employers have illegally terminated the services of Kapil Dev Singh Yadav S/o Sudarshan Singh Yadav, Conductor orally w.e.f. 01.07.1975. If so, to what relief was the workman entitled? " 3. It has been submitted that in pursuance of such Reference being made, affidavits were exchanged between the parties, documentary evidence was also filed, oral evidence was led in which the petitioner clearly stated that he had been engaged by the employers as a temporary employee and was alloted an Employees Provident Fund Account No. U.P./1429/994 and his Provident Fund was also deducted w.e.f. 04.11.1973 to 30.06.1975. 4. It has been submitted that despite making out a case of wrongful retrenchment, and failure of the employer to controvert the claim made by the workman, the opposite party No. 2 rejected the petitioner's claim by the impugned Award dated 05.04.2007. 5. 4. It has been submitted that despite making out a case of wrongful retrenchment, and failure of the employer to controvert the claim made by the workman, the opposite party No. 2 rejected the petitioner's claim by the impugned Award dated 05.04.2007. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the employers, the submissions made by them before the opposite party No. 2 to the effect that the petitioner was engaged only on a temporary basis and his name was empaneled in the waiting list of Conductors have been reiterated. Names from this waiting list/sitting panel were picked up for giving appointment on contractual basis for one month at a time to work as Conductors. The petitioner never worked continuously for more than 240 days as alleged by him in his written statement before the opposite party No. 2. It has been submitted that the petitioner could not prove that he was ever engaged while following the regular selection procedure prescribed under the Rules for appointment of Conductors. Not only did the petitioner failed to show that he was regularly appointed Conductor in the Corporation, he also failed to prove that he had worked for more than 240 days and had been orally terminated on 01.07.1975. In fact, the petitioner himself stopped coming for work in June, 1975 and, therefore, his name was removed from the select panel/waiting list. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri R.S. Tomar while arguing the case has led this Court through the impugned Award and the findings given therein and has submitted that the same are without any basis. It has been submitted that from a bare perusal of the award at least something’s have been shown to be in favor of the petitioner for example from the Exhibits, the petitioner could prove that he was asked to deposit several documents as well as security account of Rs. 200/-in September, October 1973. In October, 1974 his bus was checked and a charge sheet was issued to him in November 1974 to which he submitted his reply and minor penalty was given to him in December 1974, his Provident Fund was deducted in the year 1974-75 and 1975-76 as is evident from the information that the petitioner procured to his Application under Right to Information Act, on 13.03.2007 and which he has filed as Annexure-24 to the petition. It has been submitted that despite such evidence being placed before the Tribunal the Tribunal wrongly came to a conclusion that the petitioner was not regularly appointed Conductor and that he could not prove that he had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year so as to derive the benefit of Protection under Section 6N of the Act. 7. Mr. Akhter Abbas, Advocate while arguing the matter has repeatedly referred to the fact that the petitioner even if he was engaged on the temporary/contractual basis could have been alloted a Provident Fund Account Number as per the provisions of the Employee Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act and Rules framed thereunder. The learned counsel for the employer has referred to the Definition Clause of the Act of 1962 wherein an employer is defined under Section 2(f) as a person who is employed for wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of an establishment, and who gets his wages directly or indirectly from the employer and includes any person employed by or through a Contractor and even a person engaged as an apprentice either under the Apprenticeship Act 1961 or under the Standing Orders of the establishment. 8. It has been submitted that the definition of employee is wide enough to include even contractual and temporary employees and those employees who could be said to be probationers or apprentices. It has been submitted that mere allotment of Provident Fund Account Number does not mean that the petitioner was regularly engaged Conductor. Moreover, the deduction of Provident Fund from his wages in 1973, 1974 or 1975 has not been shown to be continuous deduction. 9. He has pointed out from page No. 73, a copy of the Form 13 that has been filled up and verified, which shows that it has been issued on 08.03.2007 and it is misleading as at the time when the petitioner was allegedly engaged in 1973 the words used are "Present Employer" and "Past Employer" at serial Nos. 7 and 8 of the Entries on the said Form. If the Form was issued on 08.03.2007, then, it was at a time when the petitioner was not working with the Corporation. Shri Akhter Abbas has also led this Court through Section 2 (f) the definition of "Employee" given in Employees' Provident Funds & Misc. 7 and 8 of the Entries on the said Form. If the Form was issued on 08.03.2007, then, it was at a time when the petitioner was not working with the Corporation. Shri Akhter Abbas has also led this Court through Section 2 (f) the definition of "Employee" given in Employees' Provident Funds & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 and has emphasized that for deductions to be made under Section -6 of the Act the employee need not be a regular employee, he may be a person employed by or through a contractor or even an apprentice. 10. It has been submitted that as and when wages are drawn by such an employee, deductions are made by the Corporation/Employer which are deposited in the account of such employee in Employees' Provident Funds Organization later on. It is not necessary that an employee should be a regular or a temporary appointed employee for deductions of EPF to be made. 11. Shri Akhter Abbas has also pointed out that the information derived through RTI Application from the EPFO by the petitioner is dated March, 2007, whereas the oral statement before the Labor Court was made in February 2007 and Award itself was made in the Adjudication Case No. 47 of 2006 on 5th of April, 2007 and published on 15.06.2007. At the time of hearing of the Adjudication Case only an oral submission was made by the petitioner before the Tribunal alleging that EPF deductions were made from his salary. Even the receipts that were filed showing deposit of passengers fare as documentary evidence by the petitioner shows that such receipts are of 03.06.1974, 03.03.1975 and 27.04.1975. It was the specific case of the Employer that the petitioner was not engaged as a regular conductor but was put in the waiting list and was asked to work as and when need for such engagement arose. Paragraph -14 of the impugned Award has been read out to show that the Employer had submitted Exhibits -E1 and E2 to show that the temporary engagement of the petitioner was done firstly w.e.f. 01.11.1974 to 30.11.1974 and then again from 01.12.1974 to 31.12.1974. This engagement was fixed term engagement and cannot be said to be a continuous engagement and the Tribunal has rightly found that the petitioner had failed to show that he worked for more than 240 days in a calender year. 12. This engagement was fixed term engagement and cannot be said to be a continuous engagement and the Tribunal has rightly found that the petitioner had failed to show that he worked for more than 240 days in a calender year. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder has submitted that in the Provident Fund Manual itself while explaining paragraphs 13 of the Scheme, it has been provided that all Government Servants and all temporary Government Servants other than those appointed on contract, whose services are likely to continue for more than a year, shall subscribe to the funds from the date of taking over the charge in the service. The various Government orders issued under Rule 4 of the G.P.F. Rules meant for State of U.P. issued in 1985 provided that all probationers appointed in regular vacancies which are expected to continue for more than a year shall subscribe to the General Provident Fund from the date of taking over charge in service. It has been submitted that if the petitioner is able to prove that a Provident Fund Account Number was alloted to the petitioner and deductions were made in the year 1973-74 and 1974-75 then he need not prove that he had worked for 240 days in a calendar year to show that he was an employee/workman who was wrongfully retrenched without giving one month's notice or pay in lieu of such notice and retrenchment compensation by the employer. 13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court has carefully perused the award dated 05.04.2007 and the documentary evidence said to have been filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal. It is apparent that the workman's exhibits referred to in the Award clearly make out the case that the petitioner was engaged as a Conductor with the employers but the date of such engagement and the nature of such engagement has not been proved before the Tribunal nor before this Court. 14. However, the date of engagement and nature of engagement and manner of engagement of a workman are irrelevant for the purposes of deciding the issue as to whether the Termination Order of which Reference has been made under Section 4K has been passed by the employer in violation of the provisions of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. 14. However, the date of engagement and nature of engagement and manner of engagement of a workman are irrelevant for the purposes of deciding the issue as to whether the Termination Order of which Reference has been made under Section 4K has been passed by the employer in violation of the provisions of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. Even if the petitioner had not been regularly engaged he was still a workman and if he is able to prove that he worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year before his termination without following the retrenchment procedure as prescribed under the Act, he would be entitled to all benefits deriving out of the same. 15. From a perusal of the Award dated 05.04.2007, this Court finds that after analyzing all Exhibits submitted by both the workman and the employers, the opposite party No. 2 has come to a conclusion that the workman could not prove that he was engaged continuously to work for more than 240 days in a calendar year. Even the date of his engagement was doubtful as in the various representations/exhibits submitted by the workman he has referred to his date of initial engagement either as 27.09.1973 or as 04.11.1973. 16. Moreover, it could not be proved by the workman that his working was continuous. 17. On the other hand, the employer's statement that the petitioner was a candidate on the waiting list/sitting panel only and was engaged on contractual basis as and when need arose seemed more plausible. The employers had admitted that the petitioner had been given one month's engagement as Conductor w.e.f. 01.11.1974 to 30.11.1974 and also one month's engagement w.e.f. 01.121974 to 31.12.1974. It was also found by the Tribunal that the petitioner must have been engaged in October, November, December, 1974 as disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against him for carrying passengers without ticket in which minor penalty was also awarded to him. 18. However the workman could not produce any documentary evidence to show that he had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. The workman had not applied to the Tribunal also to summon relevant records viz Muster Roll/Attendance Register etc from the employer. 19. 18. However the workman could not produce any documentary evidence to show that he had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. The workman had not applied to the Tribunal also to summon relevant records viz Muster Roll/Attendance Register etc from the employer. 19. The Tribunal has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the three Judges decision in R.M. Yellatti vs. Executive Engineer (2006) 108 F.L.R. page 215 to the effect that mere written statement or oral statement of the workmen would not suffice for proving 240 days of continuous working if the same is denied by the employer. Additional documentary evidence has to be filed by the workman to prove illegal termination. The employer was seriously disputing continuous engagement of the petitioner and had also disputed the contention that he was orally terminated. On the other hand, it was the consistent case of the employer that he stopped coming for work since June 1975 on his own and, therefore, his name was removed from waiting list/sitting panel of Conductors. 20. It was the employer's case also before the learned Tribunal that the reference was made belatedly on 25.01.2006 whereas the alleged retrenchment took place some time in June 1975 i.e. more than 25 years ago. The employers consistently maintained that they did not have relevant documents to show that the petitioner was engaged only in the waiting list prepared for engagement of contractual Conductors but at the same time the petitioner could not prove that he was appointed through regular selection procedure which included a written examination and an interview held for appointment of Conductors under the Rules. 21. The question of delay in approaching the labor Court has also been raised before this Court by Sri Akhter Abbas, Advocate appearing for the employers. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly submitted on the basis of judgments rendered by the Supreme Court that delay in approaching the Tribunal cannot be looked into once a Reference is made by the appropriate Government. There is no limitation prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Road-Ways (2014) 10 SCC page 301. 22. There is no limitation prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Road-Ways (2014) 10 SCC page 301. 22. This Court has perused the aforecited judgments which in very clear terms has held that though Limitation Act 1963 is not applicable to reference made under the Industrial Disputes Act, delay in raising Industrial Dispute is definitely an important circumstance which the labor Court must keep in view at that time of exercise of discretion irrespective of whether or not such objection has been raised by the other side. The labor Court while giving relief has to keep in mind all relevant factors including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which termination has been set aside and the delay in raising Industrial Disputes. It has observed that there may cases in which lapse of time may have caused fading away or eclipse of the dispute. If nobody had kept the dispute live during the long interval from the date of illegal termination till the date of Reference, it is reasonably possible to conclude in a particular case that the dispute ceased to exist after some time. Then the delay would certainly be fatal as it had resulted in material evidence, relevant to the adjudication being lost and rendered not available. 23. In the case of the petitioner, he was allegedly wrongfully terminated in June, 1975 he filed an appeal which was rejected as time barred in 1977, he filed a representation for reinstatement which was also rejected soon thereafter in 1979. A representation again for reinstatement was made by the petitioner in 2003 and then he approached this Court by filing a writ petition in 2004 which was dismissed with the observation that the petitioner being workman, statutory remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act was available to him. Reference was made in January, 2006 under Section 4K of the Act. 24. In the written statement filed by the employer and also in the oral evidence of the employer's witness, it had been submitted that all relevant documents had been lost due to lapse of more than two and a half decades, from the date of alleged illegal termination to the date of making of Reference and consideration of the same by the Tribunal. Yet certain evidence was filed by the employer to indicate that the petitioner's name found place in the waiting list prepared for engagement of contractual Conductors for at least two years. 25. The provisions of the Provident Fund Manual having been shown by the counsel for the petitioner, this Court has carefully perused the same. It relates to General Provident Fund Rules of employees, temporary or permanent of the State Government. The language of the paragraphs point clearly to this fact that they are not meant for Employees Provident Fund Act and Rules framed thereunder. 26. This Court from a perusal of the Award impugned and also from a perusal of all documentary evidence filed before this Court does not find any good ground to show interference in the Award impugned. 27. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.