JUDGMENT : 1. The present Special Civil Application impugns the judgment and award dated 20.11.2007 passed by the learned Labour Court, Jamnagar in Reference (LCJ) No.1512 of 1990. 2. The brief facts of the present Special Civil Application are as under:- 2.1 It is the case of the respondent workman that he was working with the petitioner company since last 2½ years as Khalasi and that on 15.9.1988, his services came to be terminated abruptly without following any due procedure of law. It is further the case of the workman that while his services came to be terminated, his juniors were continued in service and that thereafter also, the petitioner company had recruited new people. 2.2 Aggrieved by the said termination, the respondent workman raised a dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jamnagar, who by order dated 10.1.1989, made a reference to the learned Labour Court, Jamnagar as to whether the termination of the services of the workman were in accordance with law. 2.3 The petitioner filed his statement of claim alleging that his termination was illegal and prayed for reinstatement with continuity of service. 2.4 The learned Labour Court was pleased to issue notice to the petitioner who appeared and filed their written statement at Exh.10. The petitioner herein also moved an application to join the respondent No.2 herein as a respondent in the reference before the learned Labour Court. The said application came to be allowed and the respondent No.2 came to be added as a party respondent in the reference proceedings. It was the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 workman was not its employee and that he was working for the respondent No.2 company who was given a contract for construction and erection of the project of power plant. 2.5 That the respondent No.2 company appeared before the learned Labour Court and filed its reply. In the said reply, it denied that the workman was its employee. It was submitted that the workman was not its employee and was the employee of the petitioner herein and that the respondent No.2 company was not concerned with the termination of the respondent No.1 workman. 2.6 All the parties led evidence in support of their case. In the said reply, it denied that the workman was its employee. It was submitted that the workman was not its employee and was the employee of the petitioner herein and that the respondent No.2 company was not concerned with the termination of the respondent No.1 workman. 2.6 All the parties led evidence in support of their case. After perusing the evidence on record and hearing the learned advocates for the parties, the learned Labour Court by award dated 20.11.2007 allowed the reference and directed that the respondent No.1 workman be reinstated in service along with 20% back wages. The learned Labour Court also further came to the conclusion that the respondent No.2 company had been wrongly joined by the petitioner herein in the proceedings and therefore, imposed a cost of Rs.1,000/- to be paid to the respondent No.2 company. 2.7 Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application. 3. Mr. Premal Joshi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.1 workman was not its employee. He submits that the erstwhile Board of the petitioner company had given the contract of the Sikka Power Plant to respondent No.2 and accordingly, the respondent No.1 workman was working with the petitioner as an employee of the respondent No.2. He submits that in respect of the said contention, the petitioner company had adduced cogent evidence on record by way of oral as well as documentary evidence to prove beyond doubt that the respondent No.1 workman was not its employee. He submitted that the petitioner company had examined its officers as well as 2 workmen to establish that the respondent No.1 workman was an employee of the respondent No.2 company. He submits that the witnesses for the petitioner company - Mr. K.B.Pushpam and Mr. Sazid who are its employees had deposed in their oral evidence that the respondent No.1 workman was working with the respondent No.2 company on the project site. They have further deposed that earlier before joining the petitioner company, both these witnesses were working with the respondent No.1 workman in the respondent No.2 company. Both these witnesses have deposed that after getting recruited through proper procedure, they had joined the petitioner company. He submits that the said oral evidence goes to show that the respondent No.1 workman was in the employment of the respondent No.2 company. Both these witnesses have deposed that after getting recruited through proper procedure, they had joined the petitioner company. He submits that the said oral evidence goes to show that the respondent No.1 workman was in the employment of the respondent No.2 company. He further submits that the oral evidence of the officers states that the name of the respondent No.1 workman was not in the list of the persons working for the petitioner company as daily wagers as per the list annexed on record. He further submits that even otherwise, the respondent No.1 workman has not proved his case that he was an employee of the petitioner company. He further submits that the respondent No.1 workman was required to adduce cogent evidence to prove his case. In the present case, he submits that the respondent workman had only stated orally that he had worked for 2½ years with the petitioner company. Except the bare statement, the respondent workman has not produced any other documentary evidence to support his statement. He submits that the respondent No.1 workman ought to have established the fact that he had worked for more than 240 days with the petitioner company so as to be entitled to the relief as prayed for before the learned Labour Court. He submits that the law as laid down stipulates that the respondent workman has to first prove that he had worked continuously for 240 days in a year and if the said factum is not proved, the respondent workman is not entitled for any relief whatsoever with respect to the reinstatement and back wages. In support of the said contention, Mr. Premal Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner, relied on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the said proposition as reported in (2008) 11 SCC 435 – State of Haryana v. Ramesh Kumar, (2009) 11 SCC 522 – Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. Mohammed Rafi and (2019) 6 SCC 448 – Superintending Engineer, Twad Board & Anr. v. M. Natesan & Ors.. He submits that in view of the ratio laid down in these judgments, it was not proved that the respondent workman has established the fact that he has worked continuously for 240 days in a year and therefore, was entitled to reinstatement and continuity in service. 4. Per contra, Mr. v. M. Natesan & Ors.. He submits that in view of the ratio laid down in these judgments, it was not proved that the respondent workman has established the fact that he has worked continuously for 240 days in a year and therefore, was entitled to reinstatement and continuity in service. 4. Per contra, Mr. Umesh T. Mishra, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 workman submits that the respondent No.1 workman was recruited by the petitioner company on the site and that he was appointed as a daily wager on the post of Khalasi. He was given odd jobs during the period of project which lasted for 2½ years. He submits that the respondent No.1 workman has continuously worked for 2½ years till the project was completed. He submits that once the power generation started at the power plant project, his services came to be terminated orally in violation of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [“ID Act” for short]. He submits that no retrenchment compensation was granted and services of the respondent No.1 workman came to be terminated without any due notice. He submits that the respondent No.1 has categorically and unequivocally stated in his oral evidence that he has worked for a period of 2½ years on the power plant project of the petitioner company and that he was assisting the employees of the petitioner company on the said project. He has denied that he was working for the respondent No.2 company. He submits that the petitioner company has not denied the fact that he has worked for 2½ years. He submits that in the written statement, the petitioner company has categorically stated that the respondent No.1 workman was working as a Nominal Muster Roll (NMR) employee and that thereafter, the petitioner has changed its stand by contending before the learned Labour Court that the respondent No.1 workman was a contractual employee of the respondent No.2 company. In support of the said contention, they have also arrayed the respondent No.2 company. He submits that the respondent No.2 company has categorically denied that the respondent No.1 workman was their employee. The respondent No.2 company has stated that the respondent No.1 workman was working as an employee of the petitioner company and was not employee of the respondent No.2 company. Mr. He submits that the respondent No.2 company has categorically denied that the respondent No.1 workman was their employee. The respondent No.2 company has stated that the respondent No.1 workman was working as an employee of the petitioner company and was not employee of the respondent No.2 company. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate, further submits that the evidence of the 2 witnesses who have been examined on behalf of the petitioner company are its own employees, however, the oral evidence given by them is vague and does not specify as to during what period the respondent No.1 workman had worked along with them in the respondent No.2 company. Even otherwise, the said oral statement of the witnesses is falsified by the written statement filed by the respondent No.2 company which categorically states that the respondent No.1 workman was never its employee and he was working at the site as an employee of the petitioner company. He submits that the officers who had deposed on behalf of the petitioner company in the present case have not categorically stated anything with respect to the employment of the respondent No.1 workman. He, therefore, submits that there is no cogent evidence on record except the bare statement to show that the respondent No.1 workman was a contractual employee of the respondent No.2 company. He further submits that the list of the workmen produced by the petitioner company is with respect to those persons who have lost their land to the power plant project and were employed accordingly. He submits that the said list has nothing to do with the respondent No.1 workman since he was not a land loser in the said project and was not granted the employment on the said basis. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate, further submits that once the respondent No.1 workman has stepped in the witness box and deposed that he has worked continuously for a period of 2½ years, the onus is on the petitioner company to prove that it was not so by producing cogent evidence on record. He submits that for the reasons best known to the petitioner company, while accepting the fact that he was a muster roll employee, they have not produced the said nominal muster roll and have instead, arrayed the respondent No.2 company to show that the respondent No.1 workman was the employee of its contractor i.e. the respondent No.2. He submits that for the reasons best known to the petitioner company, while accepting the fact that he was a muster roll employee, they have not produced the said nominal muster roll and have instead, arrayed the respondent No.2 company to show that the respondent No.1 workman was the employee of its contractor i.e. the respondent No.2. He submits that the learned Labour Court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and the stand taken by the petitioner company before the learned Labour Court while allowing the said reference. He submits that the impugned order is just and proper and is required to be upheld and the present Special Civil Application be dismissed. To substantiate his case, Mr. U.T.Mishra, learned advocate has relied on the judgment reported in 2010 (1) SCC 47 – Director, Fisheries Terminal Division v. Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda. 5. Ms. Nancy Soni, learned advocate appearing for M/s. Trivedi & Gupta for the respondent No.2 company, has submitted that the respondent No.2 has categorically averred before the learned Labour Court as well as this Court that the respondent No.1 workman was never its employee and he was working as an employee of the petitioner company. She has further stated that the evidence in this regard has been rightly appreciated by the learned Labour Court and the impugned judgment and award is just and proper. She submits that the respondent No.2 company came to be wrongly arrayed as a party respondent at the behest of the petitioner company in the proceedings before the learned Labour Court and the learned Labour Court has rightly award costs for the said action of the petitioner company. She submits that the impugned judgment and order need not be interfered with. 6. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the documents and evidence on record. 7. A perusal of the record reveals that in the written statement filed before the learned Labour Court, the petitioner company had taken a categorical stand that the respondent No.1 workman was engaged as a Rojamdar on an NMR basis. When the power plant was in the project stage, the petitioner was engaging such daily wagers for the purpose of the said project. It was further stated that accordingly, the respondent No.1 workman and other similarly placed daily wagers were being paid wages. When the power plant was in the project stage, the petitioner was engaging such daily wagers for the purpose of the said project. It was further stated that accordingly, the respondent No.1 workman and other similarly placed daily wagers were being paid wages. It was further stated that the original record with respect to the engagement of the respondent No.1 workman as well as similarly placed daily wagers thereafter sent to the Jamnagar office. It was stated that the work engagement of the respondent No.1 workman was purely casual in nature. It was, thus, contended that being an NMR daily wager, the respondent No.1 workman did not have any right for reinstatement. 7.1 However, on 15.10.1999, the petitioner company moved an application in the learned Labour Court, Jamnagar stating that the respondent No.1 workman was working with its contractor – ABB Limited, which was given the project of the power plant. It was stated that at the relevant time, ABB Limited was the contractor for the project and looking at the old record, it has come to the notice that Mr. K.B.Pushpam and Mr. Sazid, the witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner company, were also working with the respondent No.1 workman with the contractor – ABB Limited. It was further stated in the application that the respondent No.1 workman’s name was not in the list which came to be annexed with the said application and by the said application, the petitioner company prayed that the contractor – ABB Limited, respondent No.2 herein, should be arrayed as a party respondent to the proceedings before the learned Labour Court. The said application came to be allowed and the respondent No.2 came to be arrayed as a party respondent before the learned Labour Court. It is further revealed that the respondent No.2 herein has categorically denied in its written statement before the learned Labour Court as well as in this Court by its affidavit-in-reply that the respondent No.1 workman was never on its rolls and was never engaged as worker in its company for the said project. The respondent No.2 company has further stated that the respondent No.1 workman was engaged by the petitioner company only for its casual work in aid of the officers / workmen who were coordinating with the contractor on the said project. The respondent No.2 company has further stated that the respondent No.1 workman was engaged by the petitioner company only for its casual work in aid of the officers / workmen who were coordinating with the contractor on the said project. The respondent No.2 company has, therefore, flatly denied the claim of the petitioner company that the respondent No.1 workman was their employee and engaged by them for the power plant project. 7.2 The petitioner company has examined 2 witnesses being its employees - Mr. K.B.Pushpam and Mr. Sazid. It is alleged that both this witnesses were earlier working with the contractor – ABB Limited i.e. the respondent No.2 before joining the petitioner company. In their oral evidence, what has been stated is that when they were working with the respondent No.2 company, the respondent No.1 workman was also working and they were all employees of the respondent No.2 company. Beyond this, nothing more has been elicited in the oral evidence. However, the said evidence will be taken at its face value only due to the fact that the contractor – respondent No.2 company has been arrayed as a party and has not supported the case of the petitioner company or the oral evidence of its employee. Further, the oral evidence does not state that for what duration the respondent No.1 workman had worked with the contractor. The said contention with respect to working with the contractor also needs to be rejected for the reasons that in the written statement, it is categorical statement of the petitioner company that the respondent No.1 workman was engaged as a daily wager on NMR basis. 8. Mr. Premal Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner, also contended that the respondent No.1 workman had failed to prove that he had worked for 240 days during the year. He has further submitted that it was necessary to first prove that the respondent No.1 workman had worked for 240 days in a year with the petitioner company. The said contention deserves to be rejected. It is seen from the record that the petitioner company has not denied that the respondent No.1 was working with them in spite of the categorical statement made by the respondent No.1 workman that he was in employment with the petitioner company for a period of 2½ years. The said contention deserves to be rejected. It is seen from the record that the petitioner company has not denied that the respondent No.1 was working with them in spite of the categorical statement made by the respondent No.1 workman that he was in employment with the petitioner company for a period of 2½ years. In absence of any denial and further contention in the written statement that he was engaged as a casual daily wager on NMR basis, there was no further need to prove that the respondent No.1 workman had worked for 2½ years as claimed. No where on record it is reflected that the said factum of working for 2½ years is disputed by any of the parties. 8.1 The judgments relied upon by Mr. Premal Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner, and the ratio laid down therein will not be applicable in the facts of the present case in view of the aforesaid observation that it was never disputed that the respondent No.1 workman had worked for 2½ years and therefore, there was no further necessity to prove that he had worked continuously for 240 days in a year. 9. In support of his case, Mr. U.T.Mishra, learned advocate for the respondent No.1 workman, has relied on the judgment reported in 2010 (1) SCC 47 – Director, Fisheries Terminal Division v. Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda wherein it has been held that if the period of engagement of the work is disputed, then, the employer has to produce the complete record and muster roll during the relevant period in order to prove that the respondent workman has not worked for 240 days. However, in the present case, the said issue has not arisen since the claim of the respondent No.1 workman has not been categorically disputed by the petitioner company or the respondent No.2 contractor. In the result, it is held that the learned Labour Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and has come to appropriate conclusions. 10. Learned advocate Mr. Premal Joshi for the petitioner company has submitted that the learned Labour Court has wrongly imposed cost of Rs.1,000/- for arraying the respondent No.2 as party respondent to the proceedings. In the result, it is held that the learned Labour Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and has come to appropriate conclusions. 10. Learned advocate Mr. Premal Joshi for the petitioner company has submitted that the learned Labour Court has wrongly imposed cost of Rs.1,000/- for arraying the respondent No.2 as party respondent to the proceedings. He submits that once the application for arraying the respondent No.2 as a party respondent was heard, decided and allowed on merits by the learned Labour Court, it was not justified in imposing costs while allowing the reference. Learned advocates for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 do not oppose the said prayer of the learned advocate for the petitioner for setting aside the imposition of such cost awarded to the respondent No.2. 10.1 In view thereof, the impugned judgment and order to the extent it imposes costs of Rs.1,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent No.2 company herein is quashed and set aside. Rest of the impugned judgment and order stand confirmed on merits. The impugned judgment and order is modified accordingly to the said extent. In view of the aforesaid observations, the present Special Civil Application is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.