JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. The petitioner has called in question, the judgment and award dated 10.11.2020, passed by the learned Industrial Disputes Tribunal and Labour Court, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”). 2. According to the petitioner, he was working with the respondent-Bank as daily wage earner and by a verbal order, his engagement was dispensed with by the respondent-Bank on 01.09.2012. 3. After the failure of the concilliation proceedings, a reference came to be made to the Industrial Tribunal by the State Government to decide as to whether the petitioner - Pradeep Singh Khichi has been validly removed from the services by oral order on 01.09.2012 by his employer-the Managing Director, Jodhpur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Jodhpur? 4. The said reference has been decided by the learned Tribunal vide its order dated 10.11.2020 and while finding that the petitioner has failed to establish that he had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year, the Tribunal rejected the said reference. 5. Mr. Gehlot, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned Tribunal has erred in rejecting petitioner's claim while holding that the petitioner has failed to establish that he has worked for more than 240 days. 6. He submitted that during the course of proceedings an application was moved by the petitioner, requiring the respondent-Bank to produce attendance register and in order to deprive the petitioner of his lawful defence, the Bank did not produce the said register, owing to which the petitioner failed to establish that he had worked on daily wage basis with the respondent-Bank. 7. It was also emphatically argued that the Tribunal has traversed beyond the question referred to it inasmuch as, it was only required to decide as to whether the petitioner's termination by oral order dated 01.09.2012 was valid or not, whereas, the learned Tribunal has recorded a finding that the petitioner has not worked for more than 240 days in the calendar year. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 9. Dealing with the petitioner's last argument first, viz the Labour Court has traversed beyond the reference, this Court feels that the same is misconceived. 10. The learned Tribunal has not committed any error of law in first deciding, as to whether the. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 9. Dealing with the petitioner's last argument first, viz the Labour Court has traversed beyond the reference, this Court feels that the same is misconceived. 10. The learned Tribunal has not committed any error of law in first deciding, as to whether the. petitioner has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year, because, this was the fundamental question, to be determined so as to examine whether protection available to a labour would be applicable. 11. When the petitioner had not worked for more than 240 days, the respondent-Bank was not required to observe the mandate of section 2(oo)(bb) and 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1947”). 12. Since, the petitioner has failed to establish the foundational fact, the learned Tribunal was justified in rejecting the reference made by the State Government. 13. Even according to the petitioner's own version and the submission made by Mr. Gehlot, the petitioner was getting Rs. 500/- per month. The petitioner has not been able to show and establish that he was paid the amount based on the number of days he had worked. 14. The petitioner has failed to discharge his burden to prove that he had worked as a daily wage earner and having failed in such attempt, even if petitioner's argument that the respondent has vindictively withheld production of attendance register is to be considered, the same cannot serve the cause of the petitioner, as the initial burden was upon the petitioner to establish by way of oral or written evidence that he had worked as a daily wage earner with the respondent-Bank. That apart, he was also required to establish that he had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year, so as to elicit protection given under the Act of 1947. 15. In view of the discussion foregoing, this Court does not find any error or infirmity in the impugned award. 16. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.