( 1 ) HEARD Ms. Nandini Joshi, learned AGP on behalf of the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. B. D. Kariya for respondent workman. . RS 2.

( 2 ) IN the present petition, the petitioner State of gujarat has challenged the award passed by the labour court, Rajkot in Reference No. 639 / 1993 dated 25th august, 1995, whereby the labour court has set side the termination order and granted reinstatement with continuity of service and 70 % backwages with effect from 19th December 1993.

( 3 ) MS. JOSHI, learned AGP has raised contentions that the respondent had not remained in service for a period of twelve months continuously and therefore, he is not entitled to benefit of Section 25-F of the I. D. Act, 1947. She also submitted that termination of workman was in the year 1987 but he raised the industrial dispute in the year 1991 and therefore there was delay of four years and hence, the labour court has committed gross error in granting relief in favour of the respondent workman. She further submitted that burden is upon the employee to prove continues service of 240 days and not upon the employer and that burden was not discharged by the employee and therefore, the labour court has committed gross error in allowing the reference in favour of the respondent. Except that no other submission made by the learned AGP Ms. Joshi before this Court.

( 4 ) MR. B. D. KARIA, learned advocate for the respondent workman has submitted that the labour court has rightly passed the award in question granting relief in favour of the respondent. He also submitted that looking to the definition of sub Section [2] of Section 25[b], it is enough to have completion of 240 days continues service even within less than twelve months period. Therefore, the labour court has rightly appreciated the legal provisions while granting the relief in favour of the respondent. He also submitted that the respondent workman had deposed before before the labour court vide exh. 11 that he remained in continues service for more than nine months and his service was terminated on 30th june, 1987. Against this evidence, no documentary evidence has been produced by the petitioner before the labour court and therefore, when the petitioner having documentary evidence such as pay register, muster roll of the workman concerned, and not produced the same before the labour court, the labour court is entitled to have adverse inference against the petitioner and that has been rightly done by the labour court and the labour court has not committed any error which in no way requires interference by this Court.

( 5 ) I have considered submissions of the learned advocates for the parties. Statement of claim was filed by the workman at Exh. 5. The respondent workman was working with effect from 1st September, 1986 and his service was terminated on 30th June, 1987. He was receiving Rs. 21. 00 as daily wage from the petitioner. At the time of terminating service, Section 25-F was not complied with by the petitioner. Juniors to the respondent were continued in service and new employees were also recruited by the petitioner. The petitioner filed written reply at Exh. 8 and raised contention that the respondent workman left the job at his own volition, meaning, abandonment of service and service of the respondent workman was not terminated by the petitioner. No recruitments were made in place of the respondent workman by the petitioner. No provisions of I. D. Act have been violated by the petitioner. After 1986, there is restriction or ban imposed by the Government to employ any daily wager. The workman remained silent from 1987 to 1991 and therefore, reference required to be rejected. Before the labour court, the workman was examined vide exh. 11 and witness of the petitioner was also examined at exh. 16. After considering the oral and documentary evidence and submissions made by the respective parties, the labour court has come to the conclusion that in all the workman was in