JUDGMENT : Bhargav D. Karia, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr.K.R.Mishra for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No.12574 of 2019 and learned advocate Mr.Gaurav Chudasama for the petitioners in Special Civil Application No.21383 of 2019. 2. Both these petitions are filed challenging the Judgment and Award dated 20th July, 2018 passed by the Labour Court, Kalol in Reference (T) No.23 of 2001. 3. Special Civil Application No.12574 of 2019 is filed by the workman wherein, the rule is served, whereas, Special Civil Application No.21383 of 2019 is filed by the employer wherein, rule is unserved. Therefore, learned advocate Mr.K.R.Mishra appearing for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No.12574 of 2019 for workman waives service of notice of rule in Special Civil Application No.21383 of 2019. Learned advocate Mr.Gaurav Chudasama is appearing for the employer in Special Civil Application No.21383 of 2019 filed by the workman. 4. By the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Labour Court, Kalol, lumpsum compensation of Rs.75,000/- is awarded in lieu of backwages as the workman had given up the claim of reinstatement during the pendency of the reference. 5.1. The brief facts of the case are that the workman was employed as a helper in the checking department of the employer-company on monthly salary of per day wages of Rs.72.50/-. As per the identity card placed on record by the workman at Exh.20, the date of birth of the workman is stated to be 01.06.1957. The workman filed a purshish at Exh.90/A on 18.11.2017 before the Labour Court stating that his age is around 60 years and accordingly, he has given up his right of reinstatement on account of superannuation and restricted the claim to the back wages, retirement benefits and other consequential reliefs. 5.2. As per the identity card issued by the employer at Exh.20, the date of joining of service of the workman is stated to be 16.06.1998. 5.3. It is the case of the workman that after undergoing the appendix operation, the workman was on leave in the month of June, 1999. 5.4. It appears that thereafter the workman has joined the duties on 16.11.1999 and continued to remain absent on duty from 16.11.1999 and ultimately, he was relieved orally from services on 17.09.2000 without issuing any notice or any retrenchment compensation. 5.5. 5.4. It appears that thereafter the workman has joined the duties on 16.11.1999 and continued to remain absent on duty from 16.11.1999 and ultimately, he was relieved orally from services on 17.09.2000 without issuing any notice or any retrenchment compensation. 5.5. The Labour Court stated that there is no evidence on record to show that the workman had actually worked from 16.11.1999 to 17.09.2000 and no evidence is produced on record by the employer except the presence register at Mark 13/1 wherein the name of the workman is shown at Sr.No. 35 and it is revealed from the said presence register that workman had worked from 11th to 15th November, 1999. In addition to the above document, voucher of payment of salary for the month of November, 1999 is placed on record at Mark 13/2 wherein, the workman had signed and the said voucher is prepared on 20.12.1999 showing the salary of Rs.383.25/-. 5.6. The Labour Court after considering the documents placed on record by both the sides and more particularly, the affidavit of the workman stating that he had worked for 240 days in the previous twelve months prior to the date of his oral termination and in absence of any other document to rebut such affidavit produced by the employer, it was presumed that the workman had worked for 240 days and is entitled to the benefit of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). 5.7. The Labour Court, however, considering the fact that the workman had given up his claim for reinstatement due to attaining the age of superannuation and also the fact that the employer has closed down the business since 2005, instead of awarding the back wages, partly allowed the reference by awarding lumpsum compensation of Rs.75,000/-. 5.8. Being aggrieved, the workman has preferred the petition being Special Civil Application No.12574 of 2019 for enhancement of the lumpsum compensation whereas, the employer has preferred Special Civil Application No.21383 of 2019 for challenging the Judgment and Award of compensation on the ground that the workman is not entitled to any back wages as he has not worked for more than 240 days as required under Section 25F of the Act. 6.1. 6.1. Learned advocate Mr.K.R.Mishra appearing for the workman submitted that the Labour Court ought to have granted the lumpsum compensation of at least Rs.1.25 Lakhs to 1.50 lakhs considering the plight of the workman who has been orally terminated in the year 2000 and he had fought for his case for almost 19 years for getting his back wages. 6.2. It was further submitted that the workman had worked for two years from 1998 to 2000 and for no fault on the part of the workman his services has been orally terminated. It was submitted that the Labour Court therefore also ought to have considered that the workman was entitled to full back wages as well as the compensation for closer of the business in the year 2005. It was therefore submitted that considering the facts of the case, the Labour Court has committed a grave error in awarding meager amount of compensation of Rs.75,000/- to the workman. 7.1. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Gaurav Chudasama for the employer submitted that the workman has never worked for 240 days from 1998 to 2000. Attention of the Court was invited to the facts narrated in the statement of claim as well as in the impugned Judgment and Award to the effect that the workman joined the service on 16.06.1998 and did not complete 240 days and the impugned Judgment and Award was passed on the basis of presumption of completion of 240 days after considering the medical certificate of the workman but the same was not proved by examining the Doctor as to whether such medical certificates were genuine or not. It was therefore submitted that it cannot be said that the workman had completed 240 days in the previous twelve months from the date of oral termination i.e. 17.09.2000. It was submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the workman had worked from 16.11.1999 to 17.09.2000 as no evidence is produced except the bare statement on oath in the affidavit that workman has worked during the said period. It was submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the workman had worked from 16.11.1999 to 17.09.2000 as no evidence is produced except the bare statement on oath in the affidavit that workman has worked during the said period. The contention of the workman was disputed that he is orally terminated with effect from 17.09.2000 but the correct fact was not appreciated by the Labour Court to the effect that workman was irregular and remained absent on his job and he was not at all interested and therefore from 16.11.1999 he himself stopped to do the job and left the job of respondent No.1 and therefore, actually the workman had not worked even for one year from 16.06.1998 onwards as he has remained on medical leave as per his say from the month of May, 1999 onwards. It was therefore submitted that there was no question of working for 240 days by the workman as presumed by the Labor Court. 7.2. It was further submitted that the financial position of employer has become very weak and he could not incurr any huge losses and from June, 2005, the company has stopped production and sold out the business place and all machineries and also got cancelled the license and right, at present there is no business in name of the employer. 7.3. It was therefore submitted that the impugned Judgment and Award passed awarding lumpsum compensation of Rs.75,000/- is required to be quashed and set aside. 7.4. It was therefore submitted that there was suppression of material fact by the workman and he has not approached with the clean hands before the Labour Court as it has also come to the knowledge of the employer that he had also initiated proceedings against his earlier employer by filing Reference (L.C.A.) No.1111 of 1988 before Labour Court and also filed Minimum Wages Application No.31 of 1998 under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 which are still pending before the concerned Court. It was therefore submitted that the workman is habituated to file such claim petition before the Labour Court in respect of his employers and considering that also, no award could have been passed in favour of the workman. It was therefore submitted that the workman is habituated to file such claim petition before the Labour Court in respect of his employers and considering that also, no award could have been passed in favour of the workman. It was also submitted by learned advocate for the employer that the Labour Court has not given any reason much less any cogent reason in support of awarding lumpsum compensation of Rs.75,000/- to the workman which is exorbitant considering the length of service of the workman. It was submitted that the Labour Court has failed to consider the length of service, type of work and fact that the workman could not have remained idle after so called alleged termination from the service in the year 2000. It was therefore submitted that awarding lumpsum compensation of Rs.75,000/- is disproportionate with the length of service rendered by the workman on a presumption of working of 240 days. 8. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the fact emerging from the record, it is not in dispute that the workman was engaged in service from 16.06.1998 and he continued to work till he was ill and was operated for appendix in the month of August, 1999 and he remained on medical leave up to September, 1999. The employer has not produced on record any document to show that the workman was not working from November, 1999 to September, 2000. The Labour Court has rightly drawn an inference in favour of the workman that he was working for 240 days relying upon the decision in case of Principal, S. V. Doshi Girls High School and Anr. Versus Lilaben Somabhai Gadasa reported in 2008 (1) G.L.H. 286 wherein, it is held that a moment a legal evidence led by the workman against employer by filing an affidavit stating that he has worked for 240 days than the burden would be shifted from workman to employer to disprove the claim of the workman. In the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the employer has failed to disprove the claim of the workman that he had worked for 240 days. In such circumstances, the Labour Court was right in holding that the workman had worked for 240 days and there is a breach of Sections 25F and 25G of the Act which entitles the workman to the reinstatement and backwages. In such circumstances, the Labour Court was right in holding that the workman had worked for 240 days and there is a breach of Sections 25F and 25G of the Act which entitles the workman to the reinstatement and backwages. However, considering the facts that the workman had given up his claim due to his age of superannuation and the fact that the business was closed since June, 2005, the Labour Court has used the discretion of awarding lumpsum compensation of Rs.75,000/- . 9. As the Labour Court has used the discretion of awarding the lumpsum compensation, the same cannot be interfered with while exercising the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the constitution of India, even otherwise, the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Labour Court is just and proper and in accordance with law after appreciating the evidence on record which does not require any interference. Both the petitions are accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged.