JUDGMENT : Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. This litigation, and the history, which it carries itself will be one of the best example of mockery of judicial system. The respondent/workman was appointed with the local body /petitioner as a Toll Moharir on 30th October, 1983. Consequent to his induction, the State Government has issued a Government Order on 30th June, 1990, by virtue of which, the octroi system was abolished. 2. The consequential effect of the Government Order dated 30th June, 1990, was that all the employees, who were not regular, their services stood terminated, but those who have acquired the status of being regular employees, they were supposed to be adjusted in the other departments of the local bodies. 3. The facts, herein, are that the respondent/workman on account of an atrocious act of the petitioner of dispensing his services have initially sought a reference of dispute to be adjudicated under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, which was referred to be decided by G.O. No. 4029-33/CP45/95 dated 27th May, 1993, and consequent to the reference made, an Adjudication Case No. 24 of 1997 was registered. 4. Before venturing further we should not be oblivions of the fact, that the controversy had germinated when the services of the workman was dispensed with in 1990, and now we are in 2023, were the workman is still litigating for vindicating his rights under law. 5. The earlier reference, which was made, that was answered by the learned Labour Court by an award dated 26th November, 1997, whereby, the learned Labour Court, had directed, that the reference made by the State Government of treating the services to have been dispensed with on 30th June, 1992, was wrong, and rather it should have been w.e.f. 1st July, 1990. 6. This award rendered by the learned Labour Court on 26th November, 1997, had attained finality, qua the respondent/workman. The same was put to challenge by the workman by filing a Writ Petition No. 1712 of 2001 (M/S), Ashraf Ali Vs. 6. This award rendered by the learned Labour Court on 26th November, 1997, had attained finality, qua the respondent/workman. The same was put to challenge by the workman by filing a Writ Petition No. 1712 of 2001 (M/S), Ashraf Ali Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (U.P.) and others, whereby, questioning the award, the Coordinate Bench of this Court had rendered a judgment on 5th July, 2005, whereby, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has issued a direction, that it would be appropriate for the respondent/workman, who was left with the liberty to reapproach the appropriate government for making a proper and correct reference, and if such a reference is made, the learned Labour Court was thereby directed to decide the reference expeditiously. 7. Yet again, the reference was made, the State Government has issued a G.O. No. 5057-62/Haldwani-CP22 (K)/2006 dated 28th August, 2006, whereby the learned Labour Court has made the following reference to be adjudicated in the exercise of its power under Section 4-K. The relevant question of reference is extracted hereunder :- ^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfed Jh vQlj vyh iq= Jh vCnqy jgeku pqWxh eksgfjZj ¼nSfud osru Hkksxh½ dh lsok;sa fnukad 1&7&90 ls lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr rFkk @vFkok oS/kkfud gS \ ;fn ugha rks lEcfU/kr Jfed D;k fgrykHk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ rFkk vU; fdl fdl fooj.k lfgr \** 8. It would be apt to observe at this juncture itself, that the earlier award and the earlier judgment of the Coordinate Bench, had attained finality qua the petitioner/local body, because the petitioner has not put a challenge, that the reference as permitted to be altered was confined to treating the date of removal from services from 30th June, 1992 to 1st July, 1990, the same was never subjected to challenge by the petitioner employer. 9. The matter was re-adjudicated by the learned Labour Court by an award dated 22nd October, 2011, as rendered in Adjudication Case No. 240 of 2008, which has been answered in favour of the workman/respondent, whereby he has been directed to be reinstated into the services, and it was held that the dispensation of services of the respondent/workman on 1st July, 1990, was bad in the eyes of law, and consequently, he was directed to be made payable with an award of Rs.25,000/- only. 10. The Writ Petition was preferred by the Local Bodies as back as on 9th May, 2011. 10. The Writ Petition was preferred by the Local Bodies as back as on 9th May, 2011. The matter remained pending after filing of the counter affidavit till it was taken up today. 11. There are few questions, which the learned counsel for the employer/petitioner, has placed before this Court. i. In fact, he has argued that the respondent/workman had never been employed with the department, and rather his services were availed by the employer intermittently as and when the need occurred. ii. He submits that since the workman has not worked for atleast 240 days, he would not be entitled for any benefit of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. 12. He further submits, that in case, if the respondent/workman was fair enough, he ought to have disclosed this fact in the proceedings, which he has initiated under Section 33-C2 for enforcement of the award dated 27th October, 2011, which he has not done, which would vitiate the proceedings under Section 33-C2. 13. It is not in dispute, that ever since the 1st reference was made by the State on 27th June, 1996, that the respondent/workman was initially inducted as Toll Moharir on 30th October, 1982, and as a consequence of abolition of the octroi, the respondent/workman did continue to work with the petitioner / department since 1982, till his actual dispensation of services on 1st July, 1990. 14. It was contended by the respondent/workman in his defence taken in the written statement, that he has been working in the capacity of being a Muster roll employee ever since 30th October, 1982, as a Toll Moharir, and accordingly, he was the recipient of the wages for the period for which he has worked till i.e. 30th October, 1982. He submitted that an abrupt closure of services of the respondent/workman without providing any opportunity of hearing or compliance of the provisions contained under Section 6-N would vitiate the action of the employer /petitioner; because according to the Standing Order, as applicable in the establishment of the petitioner, as issued in 2002, the compliance of provisions contained under Section 6-N was mandatorily required to be adhered to by the employer in relation to the Muster Roll employee as he has worked for more than 240 days. 15. 15. It has been a consistent case of the respondent/workman, that he has been working from 30th October, 1982 to 1st October, 1990, and accordingly, he was remitted with the salary, and since he has worked for over 240 days, it was mandatory on part of the employer to have complied with the provisions contained under Section 6-N of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thus, the reference was made, that he may be reinstated into the services with the entire backwages. 16. The matter was contested by the petitioner/employer wherein, he had submitted that the reference proceedings as decided in 1997, the respondent/workman, would not be entitled for any benefit. But, the employer has escaped the fact of the case, that when the Coordinate Bench has rendered the judgment on 5th July, 2005, it was rather a de novo permission, which was granted to the applicant to seek a fresh reference, except limited for the fact, the change of date w.e.f. for which his services were dispensed with, which was permitted to be referred to be decided w.e.f. 1st July, 1990. 17. In the defence taken by the respondent/workman before the learned Labour Court, but not by virtue of any material on record before this Court, they have carved out absolute new case, that the workman who was appointed therein, it was only a part time arrangement, and was not a regular establishment employee, and as such, he would not be entitled for the benefit of the G.O. issued at the time of abolition of octroi or to be considered by the respondent to be given a regular status, since having worked beyond the period prescribed under the G.O. abolishing the octroi, and hence, based upon the said pretext, the employer contended, that since it was only a time bound appointment to meet out the contingency, the workman has not worked for more than 240 days, and hence, he would not be a workman within the definition of workman as defined under the Act of 1947. 18. 18. Before the learned Labour Court, once the employer has taken a defence, that the appointment of the workman as Toll Moharir on 30th October, 1982, was only an arrangement, it is needless to say, that once an employer takes a defence about the nature of the appointment of the workman, then it was rather his burden which was to be discharged before the learned Labour Court, in order to show the actual status of the employment of the respondent/workman, who has sought reference against the order of his removal from the services. In fact, except for leading evidence of EW1, no other evidence was led by the employer to establish to the contrary with regard to the nature of appointment of the respondent/workman. 19. A very vague and evasive pleading has been raised in the written statement, that the respondent/workman has completed 240 days. The said aspect was dealt with by the Labour Court, and the Labour Court, while appreciating the evidence led by the employer, as well as by the respondent/workman, he considered the statement recorded by EW1/workman, that he has worked from 30th October, 1982, continuously, ever since dispensation of his services w.e.f. from 1st July, 1990, and he has worked for more than 240 days. 20. The workman has taken a specific plea, that almost a similar set of employees, who were identically appointed with the employer, and their services were dispensed with, but later on they were reappointed. Hence, the workman contended in the statement recorded as EW1, that he has meted out with the discrimination in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, by not continuing his services after giving him re-appointment after abolition of octroi from the local bodies. 21. He further submitted, that one of the junior employees appointed subsequent to the petitioner had been permitted to be continued, and rather he was never removed from services, and thus, he submitted that if the absolute computation is done with regard to the period of services rendered by the respondent/workman, he has completed 240 days, and dispensation of service without adhering to the provisions contained under Section 6-N of the Industrial Disputes Act would be bad in the eyes of law. 22. 22. This Court elaborated the question to be answered by the leaned counsel for the petitioner in the context of the grounds taken by him in written statement while denying the reference. The learned counsel for the petitioner admits the fact, that no such written statement is on record, and rather he has sought two days’ time to place the written statement on record. 23. This Court is of the view, that granting time at this stage would be an attempt to fill up the lacuna of pleadings, and that too, after 11 years of pendency of Writ Petition, would be nothing but a mockery of law, because when the petitioner has approached the Writ Court, it was rather his duty, which was to be discharged by him by placing all the true and correct documents on which he wants to place reliance in support of his contention allegedly prayed in the written statement. Thus, the time prayed for would stand denied in view of the fact, that as notified by the Registry of this Court under the direction of the Chief Justice that old matters, which are listed before the Court will not be adjourned. Hence, the adjournment sought for is declined. 24. In fact, the written statement, which has been dealt with by the learned Labour Court, was nothing but a reiteration of what has been argued and pleaded by the petitioner in his writ petition, pertaining to the nature of appointment and non completion of 240 days of services, but what is surprising is that in the written statement, it has never been a case, as argued before the Labour Court, that when other junior persons, have been continued into the services, what was the apparent detriment against respondent/workman, which could have ebbed forward the employer to dispense the services, and that too without compliance of the provisions contained under Section 6-N, because under the Industrial Law, if a junior has been permitted to be continued into the services, the junior cannot be given a privilege to continue into the services, by dispensing the services of an employee who has been inducted at an earlier stage. 25. 25. The learned Labour Court has observed that in case, if at all the contention of the workman is taken into consideration, that the workman has not worked for 240 days, this Court does not visualize any rational at the hands of the respondent/workman, as to why they have sat over the issue till 1990 ever since the initial induction in 1982, if the workman has not completed 240 days, his services ought to have been dispensed with, within a reasonable time, and it was not the petitioner’s prerogative to dispense the services abruptly while continuing the other juniors in the department. 26. After scrutinizing the respective pleadings taken in the written statement, the learned Labour Court has observed, that the petitioner has not placed on record any material to show, that the respondent/workman has not worked in a calendar year, and if so in which calendar year he has not worked for 240 days, was a fact missing from the evidence which was adduced by the employer, because once he is taking a defence, that he has not worked for 240 days, then it was his duty, who is the master controller of all the documents, including the muster roll, which were to have been placed before the Labour Court to establish the contention, otherwise as pleaded by the respondent/workman. 27. The learned Labour Court, while parting with the award on 22nd October, 2011, has aptly made a reference to the Government Order No. 1076/9-1-92-95C/91 dated 3rd February, 1992. By virtue of the Government Order, it was provided that in the different local bodies as covered by Article 243 of the Constitution of India, all the employees, who were working as a daily wager, and were in services prior to 11th October, 1989, and completed three years of services, and thus, their services have to be regularized, and rather it was observed, that the said aspect that the respondent/workman has worked for three years prior to 11th October, 1989, a rational inference would be drawn, that he has completed 240 days of services, and the said defence would not be available to the employer for the purposes of dispensing the services of the respondent/workman on the pretext, that he has not worked for 240 days. 28. 28. Ultimately, the Labour Court has observed, that since dispensing of the services of an employee inducted in 1982, who was sheltered by the Government Order dated 13th April, 1992, his services couldn’t have been dispensed with without compliance of the provisions contained under Section 6-N of the Industrial Disputes Act. Hence, the direction issued by the learned Labour Court of holding the order of termination of services dated 1st July, 1990, as to be bad in the eyes of law, had provided a continuity of services to the respondent/workman, which has been rightly determined by the Labour Court, though in lieu of backwages, the respondent/workman has been made entitled to be remitted with Rs.25,000/- as the penalty. The impugned award dated 22nd October, 2011, as rendered by the learned Labour Court, does not suffer from any legal vice, which would call for any interference in the exercise of my extra ordinary supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 29. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.