JUDGMENT Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. - The petitioners-employer have filed the present writ petition challenging the award dated 10th August,2018 passed by the Labour Court - I, Jaipur. 2. The Labour Court, while passing the award, has declared that services of the respondent-workman were illegally terminated on 9th February,2002 and as such, he is entitled to be reinstated with continuity in service and further, he is entitled for 50% back-wages. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned award has been passed on a wrong premise, as employment of the respondent-employee was contractual in nature. 4. Learned counsel submitted that definition contained in Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (for short "the ID Act") of "retrenchment" means termination of the workman by employer but it excludes termination of services of workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein. 5. Learned counsel submitted that while filing reply to the statement of claim, it was pleaded by the petitioners-employer that appointment of the respondent-workman was initially by way of agreement from 2nd August,2000 to 1st February,2001. The second agreement was from 6th February,2001 to 5th August,2001 and the third agreement was from 10th August,2001 and 9th February,2002. 6. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the specific averment made in reply to the statement of claim, appointment of the respondent-employee was contractual in nature and as per the definition contained in Section 2(oo)(bb) of the ID Act, the respondent-employee has wrongly been given benefit of violation of Section 25F of the ID Act. 7. Learned counsel submitted that while discussing the issue with regard to nature of employment of the respondent-employee, the Labour Court has erred in recording finding that respondent-employee was not employed on contract basis. 8. Learned counsel submitted that employment of the respondent-employee was through a society and terms of the agreement clearly provided a fixed remuneration of Rs.2000/- per month. 9. Learned counsel submitted that the Labour Court ought to have considered the status of respondent-employee as per the terms and conditions of his appointment through Society and the Labour Court without taking into account, such important aspect of the matter, has passed the impugned award. 10. 9. Learned counsel submitted that the Labour Court ought to have considered the status of respondent-employee as per the terms and conditions of his appointment through Society and the Labour Court without taking into account, such important aspect of the matter, has passed the impugned award. 10. Learned counsel further submitted that the Labour Court has erred in giving its finding that the respondent-employee is also entitled for the back-wages of 50% on all his salary and other consequential benefits from the date of termination of his services. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent-employee Mr.Akhil Simlote, at the outset, has submitted that this Court can modify the award, if it finds that the back-wages has not been awarded in proper manner by the Labour Court. 12. Learned counsel further submitted that so far as merits of the case are concerned, on which, the award has been passed, do not require any interference by this Court as the Labour Court has considered the entire evidence. 13. Learned counsel submitted that the Labour Court has taken into account the important fact of non-producing the entire record relating to employment of the respondent-employee. 14. Learned counsel submitted that neither any agreement was produced nor any attendance register was produced and inspite of specific direction given by the Labour Court, the employer did not produce the relevant record and as such, the adverse inference was to be drawn against the employer and the same has been done by the Labour Court. 15. Learned counsel further submitted that the witness, who was examined on behalf of the employer, also did not narrate anything about status of the respondent-employee and further, the said witness did not file any document to show the status of respondent-employee. 16. Learned counsel argued that the respondent-employee was employed as Class-IV employee and worked from 2nd August,2000 to 9th February,2002 and having completed more than 240 days, termination of his service by way of retrenchment has rightly been found to be in violation of Section 25F of the ID Act. 17. Learned counsel submitted that the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that as a result of non-renewal of contract of employment, the provision of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the ID Act is not applicable, learned counsel submitted that in absence of proving the nature of employment of the respondent-employee on contract basis, the said provision is not applicable. 18. Learned counsel submitted that the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that as a result of non-renewal of contract of employment, the provision of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the ID Act is not applicable, learned counsel submitted that in absence of proving the nature of employment of the respondent-employee on contract basis, the said provision is not applicable. 18. Learned counsel submitted that it was incumbent on the employer to prove that due to non-renewal of contract of employment, the workman, on expiry of such contract, would not be liable to be continued in service. 19. Learned counsel for the respondent-employee Mr.Akhil Simlote submitted that only by raising legal argument in absence of proper evidence and proof about nature of employment, status of the employee cannot be presumed to be appointed on contract basis. 20. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 21. This Court finds that the Labour Court has looked into the entire evidence. The Labour Court has recorded its finding that the petitioners-employer did not produce any record with regard to status of the respondent-employee. 22. This Court finds that the Labour Court specifically recorded that none of the agreement, alleged to be executed between the parties, was produced before the Labour Court. The Labour Court further recorded its finding that the employer was directed to produce relevant record like attendance register, salary register, muster roll and vouchers. These documents inspite of being directed to be produced, the employer failed to do so and as such, the Labour Court has rightly drawn conclusion that employment of the workman was not contractual in nature. 23. This Court further finds that the Labour Court has not committed any illegality or its finding can be said to be suffering from perversity so far as the status of respondent-employee is concerned, making of bald allegations or taking averments in reply to the statement of claim is not enough. The nature of employment is required to be proved by leading tangible evidence. 24. This Court finds that the Labour Court has not committed any illegality in passing order of reinstatement of the respondent-employee. 25. The nature of employment is required to be proved by leading tangible evidence. 24. This Court finds that the Labour Court has not committed any illegality in passing order of reinstatement of the respondent-employee. 25. This Court further finds that the respondent-employee had worked for about one and a half years, thus grant of 50% back-wages will not be in the fitness of things and accordingly, this Court deems it proper to modify the award passed by the Labour Court and it maintains reinstatement of the respondent-employee and he will be entitled for continuity in service on the post of Class-IV, however, he will not be entitled for 50% back-wages, as has been ordered by the Labour Court. The respondent-employee will be entitled for notional benefits of fixation without actual payment till his reinstatement. 26. With the aforesaid modification, the present writ petition stands disposed of. 27. The compliance of this order be made by the respondents within a period of five weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Order accordingly.