H.K. Rathod, J.—Heard learned Advocate Mr. Asim Pandya for H.L. Advocates on behalf of the petitioners.

2. In the present petition, the petitioners have challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Amreli in Reference No. 31 of 2005 dated 04.12.2007 whereby the Labour Court has partly allowed the reference and set aside the termination order and granted reinstatement with continuity of service with 20% back wages of interim period with the cost of Rs. 1500/-.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Asim Pandya submitted that the Labour Court has committed gross error in deciding the award which is contrary to the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2006 (1) SCC 106. He submitted that respondent workman has not produced any documents to prove 240 days continuous service before the Labour Court. He also submitted that except the evidence of the workman, there is no other evidence from which 240 days is proved by the workman. The respondent workman has not called upon the petitioner to produce relevant documents for the relevant period during which she was working with the petitioner. So in absence of the demand made by the respondent workman, adverse inference drawn by the Labour Court