1. This writ petition is preferred by an employer challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, Wardha on 862005 in Reference (IDA) No. 14 of 1997. The Labour Court has answered the reference in the affirmative holding that the respondent-employee has continuously worked for 240 days prior to the date of his termination i.e. 20-3-1985 and there was non compliance of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As a result, the termination dated 20-3-1985 has been set aside and direction has been given to the petitioner to reinstate the respondent-employee in his former post with continuity in service without back wages.

2. The facts not in dispute are as under:

The respondent-employee was in the service of the petitioner-employer as a Labourer w.e.f. 13-8-1979 on the work of construction of Wardha Sevagram road. His services were terminated by issuing notice dated 1-11-1983 and he was again appointed to do the same work on 21-2-1984. However, he was discontinued from service by oral order w.e.f. 20-3-1985. The respondent-employee issued demand notice on 31-7-1996. The matter was carried before the Conciliation Officer, who, in exercise of powers conferred under Clause (c) of Sub Section (1) of Section 10 read with Sub Section (5) of Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, referred the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court. In the statement filed before the Labour Court, the claim of the respondent-employee was that he had continuously worked for more than 240 days preceding the date of his termination on 20-3-1985 and without complying with the mandatory provisions of Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act read with Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957 his services were terminated. The respondent-employee claimed reinstatement with continuity in service and back wages.

3. The petitioner-employer filed his written statement denying the claim of the employee on several grounds. It was the stand taken by the petitioner that the dispute raised was stale in nature, as the alleged termination was dated 20-3-1985 and the reference was sought on 31-7-1996, i.e. after the lapse of about 11 years. It was the stand taken that in terms of Clause272 of the Public Works Department Manual, the records of the casual labourers beyond five years, were not retained. It was further the stand taken that there is nothing to show that there exists relationship of “master and servant” or “employer and employee” with the petitioner and respondent. The petitioner-employer also denied that the respondent-employee had completed 240 days of continuous service before the date of his termination.

4. Before the Labour Court, the employee entered into the witness box and has deposed his case. He closed his evidence by filing pursis at Exh.14. The petitioner-employer examined one Shri K. R. Bajaj, the Assistant Engineer and filed pursis closing their oral evidence. Relying upon notice (Exh.12) dated 1-11-1982, the Labour Court has held that the employee has proved that he has completed more than 240 days of continuous service in each year. Such finding was recorded on the basis of the oral evidence of the employee and on the failure of the petitioner-employer to produce the relevant documents on record, adverse inference was drawn. It was held that there was noncompliance of the provisions of Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On the question of delay in seeking reference, the Labour Court has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mahavirsingh Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board and others, reported in 1999(2) CLR7 = (1999) 9 SCC 178, to hold that the reference cannot be rejected on the ground of delay and at the most back wages can be denied. On the basis of these findings, the reference has been answered in the affirmative.

5. Shri Anand Deshpande, the learned A. G. P. for the petitioner-employer has urged that the Labour Court ought to ha