JUDGMENT : SONIA GOKANI, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the State of Gujarat challenging the judgment and order of this Court dated 15.02.2018 passed by this Court (Coram: A.J. Shastri, J.) wherein challenge was to the award dated 24.02.2016 passed in Reference (LCJ) No. 23 of 2020, whereby the learned Presiding Officer reinstated the workman's services without any backwages. 1.1 When the same was challenged before this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 1089 of 2017, the Court confirmed the judgment and award passed by the learned Presiding Officer. 2. Facts in nutshell are as follows. 2.1 The opponent is the original claimant-opponent herein, who was serving in the Forest Department since last 12 years as a Khalasi in a boat and, according to him, he was drawing monthly wages of Rs. 2000/-. He alleged that on 01.01.2008 without any intimation or process of law, he was orally terminated from service. 2.2 It was his case that he had completed 240 days in each year and therefore, on 11.01.2010, he made a request to the department to reinstate him in service. As such a request was not accepted, he urged the authority concerned by raising his claim and the same had culminated into the reference. It was a stand taken by the Department that in none of the years, the opponent had completed 240 days of service and his services were availed as and when required. As no fruitful outcome of such conciliation had come, the matter was referred to the labour Court by way of a Reference. The same was adjudicated being Reference (T) No. 23 of 2010 on 24.02.2016. It was partly allowed, where reinstatement without backwages was directed. 3. When challenged before this Court, the Court relied heavily on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sameer Suresh Gupta through PA Holder vs. Rahul Kumar Agarwal, (2013) 9 SCC 374 , wherein it was held and observed that in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court does not sit in appeal over the decision and findings of the statutory authorities, it is not open to substitute its own finding by revising or re-appreciating the evidence. The Court, accordingly, had confirmed the judgment and award having not found any perversity. 4. The Court, accordingly, had confirmed the judgment and award having not found any perversity. 4. This has aggrieved the appellant, who has approached by way of this appeal by urging that the judgment passed is arbitrary and contrary to the facts and material on the record. It is the say of the appellant that the Court ought to have considered that the original claimant opponent had not completed 240 days in each year and no muster roll was maintained for such daily-wagers. He was called as and when required for the work and the details, which were available as per the vouchers, were furnished to the original claimant under the Right to Information Act. As per the details of vouchers, the workman has only worked from the year 2000-2005 and in none of the years, 240 days has been completed. It is again the stand of the Department that the original claimant opponent herein has on his own stopped coming to work from the year 2005 itself and the institution of proceedings in the post 2010 year period is an afterthought. The trial Court had recorded the findings on the strength of the evidence, which were improper and illegal and the Court ought to have regarded the same. 4.1 It is further the say of the appellant that the original claimant had preferred Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 1128 of 2018 before this Court for contempt, while procedure for filing an appeal against Special Civil Application No. 1089 of 2019 was under the process. Noticing the proceedings initiated under the Contempt of Courts Act, the original claimant has been reinstated in service with continuity on 20.12.2018. Nevertheless, that would not, in any manner, defeat the cause of the claimant opponent. 5. We have heard extensively Mr. Jayneel Parikh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State, who, after adducing the evidence, has requested for early date. He has taken us through the evidence, which had been led before the labour Court. He also extensively argued along the line of the appeal memo and had urged that only on the strength of the law point, learned Judge has dismissed the petition, when, in fact, the averments of completion of 240 days in a particular year preceding the date of termination or his not having joined himself, were not appreciated. 6. Per contra, Mr. 6. Per contra, Mr. Anvesh Vyas, learned advocate for the opponent has strongly urged this Court that the appeal is filed without any substance and being devoid of merits, the same deserves to be dismissed. He has urged that not only the Labour Court has extensively discussed the evidence, which has been adduced, more or less documentary, it has also applied the law on the facts and circumstances of the case and has rightly reinstated the opponent. The Court has also struck balance by not giving the backwages and that fact had been accepted by the opponent, who had not challenged separately this aspect of backwages. Learned Judge has appreciated all aspects in accordance with law and, therefore, there is no requirement for the Court to intervene. He drew the attention of the Court that onus of proof which lied on the workman had been duly fulfilled and, therefore, the onus had shifted on the State. When it could not dislodge the proof, which had been adduced, the Court held it to have been established by the opponent. He also further urged that in various matters, the Courts have held that the Government department, particularly, the Forest Department is an industry, which does not need to be reiterated in every matter. 7. Having thus heard both the sides and also having noticed the material on the record as well as both the judgments of the labour Court as well as of the learned Single Judge, this Court notices that on the issue of completion of 240 days of the opponent, when the opponent was relived from work in the year 2008, all along, emphasis on the part of the Department is that the workman opponent had not completed 240 days and, therefore, any direction issued by the Labour Court is without any evidence and is contrary to law. 8. We have gone through the judgment of the labour Court, which not only considers extensively the oral as well as the documentary evidence, it has mindfully looked into the evidence adduced by both the sides. It has also taken care of the fact that the onus firstly is on the petitioner, who approaches the Court, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Range Forest Officer vs. S.T. Hadimani, 2002 (3) SCC 25 , but, once that initial onus is discharged, then the same would shift upon the State. It has also taken care of the fact that the onus firstly is on the petitioner, who approaches the Court, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Range Forest Officer vs. S.T. Hadimani, 2002 (3) SCC 25 , but, once that initial onus is discharged, then the same would shift upon the State. The opponent has given the oral evidence and also simultaneously, it has produced the evidence of the department itself, which indicated that pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 15.09.2004 and 29.10.2014, all benefits which are made available by the Court to the daily rated employees, the list of beneficiaries needed to be prepared by the Forest Officers, Marine National Park, Jamnagar. It has prepared the list of those employees, who according to this office, were entitled to the benefits of the said resolution dated 15.09.2014 and that of 29.10.2014. A specific reference is made of proved communication (Ex.33), which had been forwarded to his superior, where the name of the present opponent is at No. 3. Although, it is not treated as a list for the purpose of seniority, the fact remains that this was the list prepared by the Department itself and therefore, to contend contrary to its own documents, merit no acceptance. The stand of the Department, therefore, that he has not completed 240 days and worked intermittently as and when there was requirement for less than 240 days, rightly was not accepted by the Labour Court. The learned Single Judge has examined all these aspects and he has also thoroughly considered as to how the department itself was in favour of the opponent getting the benefits of the said resolutions. He rightly had relied on the decision of Sameer Suresh Gupta (supra) to enlist the principles, which have been culled out as to how the presiding officer's jurisdiction needs to be exercised by the Court. The Court, rightly, therefore, held and observed that the parameters for exercising the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari or other writs was missing, as all parameters, when are looked at for interference by the High Court, were absent. The Court, rightly, therefore, held and observed that the parameters for exercising the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari or other writs was missing, as all parameters, when are looked at for interference by the High Court, were absent. This being a discretionary power to be exercised on equitable principle and at a time when the matter would fit into those details, parameters culled out in the said matter as well as in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Lakshmi Sugar and Oil Mills Ltd. (2013) 10 SCC 509 , it chose not to substitute its own findings by revising and re-appreciating the evidence. 9. We see no reason to interfere with the findings and observations of the learned Single Judge, who has committed no error, on the contrary, has rightly appreciated the factual matrix and applied the law to the same. There does not appear to be any reason for this Court to also show its indulgence in the appellate jurisdiction. If any thing is left out even by way of benefits, let the same be given to the opponent without any further loss of time. 10. Appeal, being devoid of any merits, stands rejected. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019, LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1715 of 2019 In view of the order passed in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 1715 of 2019, no order is required to be passed in the present Civil Application. Application stands disposed of accordingly.