JUDGMENT 1. Challenge is to an order dated 11.1.2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 4116/2014. 2. The petition was directed against award dated 27.3.2014 passed by the Labour Court No. 1, Gwalior in the Industrial Dispute Reference. 3. The dispute referred to the Labour Court for adjudication was whether the termination of the workman (present appellant) was and proper. If not what relief he is entitled for. 4. The dispute arose in the factual background that workman alleged illegal termination stating that he was engaged as mechanic/driver in the Municipal Corporation workshop in the year 2003 and continuously worked till 2007 on daily wages, without any break. The services were dispensed with in October 2007, when in his place, name of some other person was entered in the muster. The workman raised dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. On the failure of conciliation, the matter was referred to Labour Court for adjudica-tion. Before Labour Court, the statement of facts was filed by both the parties. Whereas the workman reiterated as was stated before Assistant Labour Commissioner. The employer stated that the workman was engaged for a period of 89 days and thereafter with interim break on each completion of 89 days, he was re-engaged. It was contended that provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not applicable to the establishment. The Labour Court framed the following issues: Øekad oknÁ'u fu"d"kZ ¼1½ D;k ÁFkei{k us f}rh;i{k ds v/khu ,d o"kZ esa 240 fnol ls vf/kd yxkrkj dk;Z fd;k gS\ gk¡ ¼2½ D;k ÁFkei{k dk lsok i`Fkdhdj.k gk¡ voS/kkfud gS\ gk¡ ¼3½ D;k ÁFkei{k lsok i`Fkd~ ds ckn ls csjkstxkj gS\ vkns'kkuqlkj ¼4½ lgk;rk ,oa O;;\ vkns'kkuqlkj 5. Parties led evidence. 6. On the basis of the evidence on record the labour Court on the findings that the workman having completed 240 days was entitled for the protection under the provision contained under Section25 F of the Act of 1947, the breach whereof being committed, directed for reinstate-ment without back wages by award passed on 27.3.2014. Which on being challenged has been set aside in Writ Petition No. 4116/2014 decided on 11.1.2019, on the findings that, the workman having failed to establish of having worked for 240 days continuously, the Labour Court erred in drawing adverse inference against the employer and returned the perverse findings that the retrenchment was illegal. Learned Single Judge found: “8. Which on being challenged has been set aside in Writ Petition No. 4116/2014 decided on 11.1.2019, on the findings that, the workman having failed to establish of having worked for 240 days continuously, the Labour Court erred in drawing adverse inference against the employer and returned the perverse findings that the retrenchment was illegal. Learned Single Judge found: “8. From the perusal of pleadings of the parties and the award dated 27.3.2014 passed by the Labour Court, it appears that the Labour Court has considered the case in a slip-shod manner. The basis on which the reference has been answered in affirmative was in respect of alleged continuous working of respondent for 240 days prior to his retrenchment. The documents filed by respondent/employee were not sufficient to arrive to conclusion and on the basis of documents and scantily led evidence, the conclusion has been arrived. It appears that Municipal Corporation was not given sufficient opportunity to project the case. Beside that, if the Corporation was reluctant to assist the Court, then the Labour Court could have taken the note of such omission and would have caused appearance of officers or would have imposed cost over erring authority but the controversy has been decided in a slip-shod manner while it needs to be decided on the basis of evidence adduced by both the parties and appreciating documents in support of submissions. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, controversy has not been decided in a reasonable manner and therefore, impugned award dated 27.3.2014 is hereby set aside. Parties are relegated back to the original position, wherein, the parties would be at liberty to submit additional documents in support of their submissions and parties shall adduce evidence in support of their submissions. 9. It is made clear that Municipal Corporation, Gwalior shall have to contest such cases with sincerity and commitment and therefore, this order be sent to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Gwalior to take note of the pending cases before different fora regarding service conditions with utmost sincerity. Parties to appear before the Labour Court on 29.1.2019 on which date they will take guidance from the Labour Court for further guidance. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and matter shall be taken up and decided in accordance with law on its own merits. Parties to appear before the Labour Court on 29.1.2019 on which date they will take guidance from the Labour Court for further guidance. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and matter shall be taken up and decided in accordance with law on its own merits. Sincere endeavour is expected from the Labour Court to conclude the proceed-ings within four months from the date of appearance of parties.” 7. The impugned order is under challenge on the ground that learned Single Judge glossed over material evidence on record establishing the factum of workman having continuously worked for over 240 days. 8. The respondent, in turn, has supported findings. 9. Considered rival submissions. Perused the record. 10. Evident it is on record that besides seeking production of relevant document, which the employer did not produce, the workman had produced/exhibited 48 documents; whereof documents Ex. P/3 to Ex. P/22 and Ex. P/24 to Ex. P/48 relating to engagement of the workman with the employer. Furthermore, close reading of the testimony of employer,s witness Shri Shrikant Kante establishes the fact of workman having continuously worked for over 240 days. P/3 to Ex. P/22 and Ex. P/24 to Ex. P/48 relating to engagement of the workman with the employer. Furthermore, close reading of the testimony of employer,s witness Shri Shrikant Kante establishes the fact of workman having continuously worked for over 240 days. The Labour Court, on the basis of these cogent material evidence, returned the following findings: ^^14- ÁFkei{k us ÁLrqr lk{; esa o"kZ 2003 ls o"kZ 2007 uoEcj rd f}rh;i{k ds v/khu yxkrkj nSfud osru Hkksxh eSdsfud o pkyd ds :i esa dk;Z djus dk dFku fd;k gS ,oa Án'kZ ih&1] Án'kZ ih&2] Án'kZ ih&3 yxk;r Án'kZ ih&18 ,oa Án'kZ ih&19 yxk;r Án'kZ ih&22 rFkk Án'kZ ih&23 yxk;r Án'kZ ih&48 nLrkost ÁLrqr fd;s gSaA Án'kZ ih&1 nLrkost ÁfrÁkFkhZ ls lacafËkr ugha gS ;g voyksdu ls Árhr gksrk gS] Án'kZ ih&2 vukosnd }kjk tkjh gS ftlesa vkosnd dks nks o"kZ ls dysDVj nj ij eSdsfud o pkyd ds in ij dk;Z djuk crk;k x;k gSA ;|fi bl nLrkost ij dksbZ fnukad vafdr ugha gSA Án'kZ ih&3 yxk;r Án'kZ ih&22 ds ewy nLrkost gSa tks fd f}rh;i{k ds vyx&vyx deZpkfj;ksa }kjk okgu ejEer ds fy;s dk;Z'kkyk ÁHkkjh uxj ikfydk fuxe dks fn;s x;s gSaA mDr nLrkost ÁFkei{k ds ikl dSls ÁkIr gq;s ;g fopkj.kh; gSA Án'kZ ih&24 yxk;r Án'kZ ih&48 ds nLrkost esa pkyd ds LFkku ij 'kkfgn [kka dk uke gSA mDr nLrkostksa ij Mhty Ánk; djus o okgu dk Øekad vafdr gSA mDr nLrkost fnukad 28-8-2006 ls fnukad 31-10-2006 dh vof/k ds gSaA mijksDr nLrkostksa dh oSËkkfudrk ds fo"k; esa fuf'pr rkSj ij ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd mijksDr nLrkost ÁfrÁkFkhZ }kjk tkjh fd;s oS/kkfud nLrkost gSa] D;ksafd mu ij f}rh;i{k laLFkku dh lhy vafdr ugha gS] blds lkFk gh pkyd ds gLrk{kj ds dkWye esa pkyd ds gLrk{kj ugha gaSA 16- ;|fi ÁFkei{k us f}rh;i{k ls mijksDr dk;Z vof/k ds gktjh o osru i=d U;k;ky; esa ÁLrqr djk;s tkus ds fy;s vkosnu fn;k Fkk ftl ij fu;ekuqlkj f}rh;i{k dks o"kZ 2003 ls uoEcj 2007 rd ds ÁFkei{k ls lacaf/kr gktjh o osru i=d ÁLrqr djus ds fy;s vknsf'kr fd;k x;k] ijUrq U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds ckn Hkh f}rh; i{k }kjk mDr nLrkost ÁLrqr ugha fd, x;s gSa] bl laca/k esa f}rh;i{k lk{kh Jhdkar dkaVs us Áfrijh{k.k esa deZdkjksa dk mifLFkfr jftLVj ,oa osru i=d dk;kZy; esa cuk;k tkuk Lohdkj fd;k gSA bl laca/k esa foijhr fu"d"kZ f}rh;i{k ds fo:) ,oa ÁFkei{k ds i{k esa fudkyk tkuk U;k;ksfpr gSA bl laca/k esa U;k;kn`"Vkar 2010 ¼4½ ,eŒihŒ,yŒtsŒ 378 ¼lqÁhe dksVZ½ uohuflag HknkSfj;k cuke LVsV vkWQ ,eŒihŒ voyksduh; gSA mDr fu.kZ; esa ;g fu.khZr fd;k x;k gS fd f}rh;i{k ds ikl loksZRre lk{; miyC/k gS] U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds ckn Hkh U;k;ky; esa ÁLrqr ugha fd;k tkus ls foijhr fu"d"kZ fudkyk tkuk U;k;ksfpr gSA 17- f}rh;i{k lk{kh Jhdkar dkaVs us ÁFkei{k dks dysDVj }kjk ykxw nSfud nj ij 89&89 fnol ds fy;s vko';drk vuqlkj le;≤ ij dk;Z djuk crk;k x;k gS ijUrq bl lacaËk esa dksbZ nLrkost ÁLrqr ugha fd;s x;s gSa fd ÁFkei{k us dc ls dc rd 89&89 fnol dk;Z fd;k gSA mDr lk{kh us Án'kZ ih&4] Án'kZ ih&5] Án'kZ ih&7] Án'kZ ih&9 ,oa Án'kZ ih&12 ij , ls , Lo;a ds gLrk{kj Lohdkj fd;s gSaA Án'kZ ih&3 o Án'kZ ih&4 flrEcj 2005 esa tkjh fd;s x;s gaSA Án'kZ ih&7 dh jlhn esa ch ls ch Hkkx ij dYyw dks okgu Bhd djus ds fy;s funsZf'kr fd;k x;k gSA lk{kh us 'kkfgn [kku dk dk;Z Mhty Mkyuk o xkfM;ksa ds uV cksYV dluk ,oa gsYij dk dk;Z djuk crk;k gSA lk{kh us Áfrijh{k.k ds ist Øekad&5 ij ;g dFku fd;k gS fd og ;g ugha crk ldrk fd rRdkyhu dk;Z'kkyk ÁHkkjh us 'kkfgn [kku dks fdrus fnu ds fy;s dk;Z ij j[kk Fkk] o"kZ 2003 ls o"kZ 2007 rd f}rh;i{k lk{kh dk;Z'kkyk ÁHkkjh ugha Fks] ;g Hkh Áfrijh{k.k esa dFku fd;k gSA lk{kh us ;g Hkh dFku fd;k gS fd mls bl ckr dh tkudkjh ugha gS fd 'kkfgn [kku dks fcuk uksfVl fn;s vDVwcj o uoEcj 2007 dks fcuk osru fn;s fudky fn;k FkkA^^ 11. Evidently, learned Single Judge glossed over these findings which are based on material evidence, while causing indulgence and thus erred in remitting the matter to the Labour Court thus giving opportunity to fill the lacuna. 12. It was secondary that the relevant documents were not produced. However, the omission was significant. As the workman had discharged its onus of having continuously worked for over 240 days preceding his termination; incumbent it was upon the employer to have proved that the workman did not work for over 240 days. 13. In Director, Fisheries Terminal Department v. Bhikubhai Meghanji-bhai Chavda (2010) 1 SCC 47 , it is held: “16. This Court in the case of R. M. Yellatty v. Assistant Executive Engineer, has observed: ‘17...... However, applying general principles and on reading the aforesaid judgments, we find that this Court has repeatedly taken the view that the burden of proof is on the claimant to show that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. This burden is discharged only upon the workman stepping up in the witness box. This burden is discharged upon the workman adducing cogent evidence, both oral and documentary. In cases of termination of services of daily-waged earners, there will be no letter of appointment or termination. There will also be no receipt of proof of payment. Thus in most cases, the workman (the claimant) can only call upon the employer to produce before the Court the nominal muster roll for the given period, the letter of appointment or termination, if any, the wage register, the attendance register, etc. Drawing of adverse inference ultimately would depend thereafter on the facts of each case.’ 14. In view whereof, the impugned order cannot be given the stamp of approval. Accordingly, it is set aside. The award passed by the Labour Court is restored. The appellant, besides reinstatement, shall be entitled for the wages from the date of award till reinstatement. 15. The appeal is disposed of finally. No costs.