ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the Employer being aggrieved of award dated 26.6.2013 passed by the Presiding Officer of Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cumLabour Court, Jabalpur in CGIT/LC/R/88/2001. 2. Shri Amit Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned award is arbitrary & illegal. The claim could not have been adjudicated by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur inasmuch as the claim was filed after more than eight years of alleged action of the employer in dispensing with services of the claimant. As per the provisions contained in Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the limitation for filing a case is three years and when the case was filed after more than eight years, that should not have been entertained by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur. Vide order Annexure P/3, the claimant was informed that his services could not be extended as he was given the work in the year 1986. Since the Project was closed, therefore, there was no work for the claimant and vide Annexure P/4, he dictated his terms & conditions of the employment to be posted in District Ballia (U.P), which was not possible and, therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the action of the Employer calling for any interference by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur. The finding of back wages is arbitrary and contrary to law. In cross-examination, the claimant himself admitts that the affidavit is in English Language and what is written in the affidavit is not known to him. Thus, the claimant failed to prove the factum of his unemployment during the intervening period and that finding of back wages being contrary to record and is in violation of the provisions of law should be set aside. He lastly submits that now the claimant is aged about 59 years, therefore, no useful purpose is going to be served by allowing him to continue in work. Hence, prayer is made to allow this writ petition by setting aside the impugned award. 3. He lastly submits that now the claimant is aged about 59 years, therefore, no useful purpose is going to be served by allowing him to continue in work. Hence, prayer is made to allow this writ petition by setting aside the impugned award. 3. Ms.P.L.Shrivastava, learned counsel for the claimant in her turn reading the affidavit of the claimant filed in lieu of the examination-inchief submits that in Paragraph No.8, this witness has categorically deposed that from the date of termination, he remained unemployed and was assisting his father in agricultural activity as his father owns an agricultural land admeasuring 1 acre situated in Village Manda, District Ballia (UP) and all his needs and the need of his wife and children were meted by his aged parents. On record, there is entrypass issued to the claimant as contained in Annexure A/1 and thereafter the Attendance Sheets showing that he worked from time to time till 1992. The claimant had never made a request for transfer to Ballia (UP) till his disengagement. When his request for reinstatement was turned down by the Employer then he had requested them to reinstate him at Ballia (UP) and take work from him at Ballia (UP). That request made in the year 1994 much after the date of his disengagement cannot be construed to be a fact that he was trying to dictate the terms and conditions of the employment. Ms.P.L.Shrivastava supports the claim of the workman for back wages and submits that much cannot be read in the crossexamination inasmuch as in Paragraph No.9 of the cross-examination, the claimant has shown his inability to read English and has not shown his inability to decipher that what is mentioned in the affidavit. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that the reliance placed by Shri Amit Mishra, learned counsel for the Employer on Annexure P/3 to demonstrate that the Project in which the claimant was engaged was closed is not made out. In Annexure P/3 dated 9.9.1992, there is no mention of closure of the Project or completion of work requiring disengagement of the claimant, therefore, the reliance placed by Shri Amit Mishra on Annexure P/3 to justify disengagement of the claimant is not made out. Annexure P/4 is a communication made by the claimant seeking his reengagement. In Annexure P/3 dated 9.9.1992, there is no mention of closure of the Project or completion of work requiring disengagement of the claimant, therefore, the reliance placed by Shri Amit Mishra on Annexure P/3 to justify disengagement of the claimant is not made out. Annexure P/4 is a communication made by the claimant seeking his reengagement. It is not a letter, which can be taken to be a communication seeking dictation of his terms and conditions of the employment at Ballia (UP). 5. Thus, as far as the finding of retrenchment as has been recorded by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur being illegal is concerned, I find that there is no ground to show indulgence in the matter inasmuch as the evidence was led to prove the engagement of the work for more than 240 days in a calendar year and not following the principles laid down in section 25F & 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before his retrenchment and to that extent, the impugned award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur is upheld. 6. As far as the finding of grant of back wages is concerned, that appears to be erroneous. In the affidavit, though the claimant had said that he was being looked after by his parents, who were having 1 acre of agricultural land at Village Manda, District Ballia (UP) but he has not enclosed copy of any revenue record to substantiate his claim that he was being looked after by his parents on the basis of 1 acre of agricultural land, which was held by his father. In absence of any revenue record, when cross-examination of the claimant is read as is mentioned in Paragraph No.9 then it is evident that he has admitted that whatever is written in the affidavit is not known to him. For clarity, it will be profitable to reproduce Paragraph No.9 of the cross-examination of the claimant himself: ¼9½ eSa eSfaVªd ikl gwaA vaxzsth iwjk ugha vkrk gSA 'kiFki= vaxszth esa gSA mlesa D;k fy[kk gS] ugha ekywe gSA +7. Thus, it is evident that the finding of claimant’s unemployment during the intervening period is recorded without there being any independent witness and merely on the basis of the writing in the affidavit, which could not have been accepted by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur in a blindfold manner. Thus, it is evident that the finding of claimant’s unemployment during the intervening period is recorded without there being any independent witness and merely on the basis of the writing in the affidavit, which could not have been accepted by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur in a blindfold manner. Hence, the order of payment of back wages needs to and is set aside but the other part of the award declaring his termination to be illegal is required to be maintained and is hereby maintained. The finding regarding termination and regularisation are upheld. It is directed that the Employer shall forthwith reinstate the workman with wages from the date of the impugned award dated 26.6.2013 and shall thereafter consider the case of the workman for regularisation as per Regularisation Scheme, 1989 within a further period of sixty days. 8. In above terms, this writ petition is disposed of. 9. Let record of the Labour Court be sent back.