1. - These two intra-court appeals, arising out of the two writ petitions (CWP Nos. 4504/2005 and 5431/2005), which were filed respectively by the workman (respondent No. 1 herein) and by the employer (the appellant herein) in relation to the same award dated 27.02.2004 as made by the Labour Court, Bikaner in Reference Case No.35/1998, have been considered together; and are taken up for disposal by this common judgment.

2. In the aforesaid award dated 27.02.2004, the Labour Court, Bikaner answered the reference made by the State Government under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act of 1947') on the question of validity of termination of services of the respondent-workman from 02.09.1996; and, while holding the termination invalid and illegal, directed the appellant-University to reinstate the workman with benefit of continuity of service and to pay him an amount of Rs. 3,000/- as compensation in lieu of back wages. This award was sought to be questioned by the appellant-University by way of a writ petition in this Court, being CWP No.5431/2005. On the other hand, the respondent-workman also filed a writ petition, being CWP No.4504/2005, questioning the award to the extent of denial of back wages; and with the prayer that the employer be directed to implement the award forthwith.

3. It appears that a show cause notice was issued in CWP No.4504/2005 as filed by the workman but nobody appeared before the Court on behalf of the employer, the present appellant. A learned Single Judge of this Court observed that the employer like the University was not entitled to ignore the award unless its effect was stayed by a superior Court; and proceeded to dispose of the said writ petition on 26.08.2005 with directions that the award be implemented within a month. The learned Single Jude ordered,-

"The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with a direction to the respondent - University to implement the award dated 27.2.2004 within a period of one month from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order."

4. On the other hand, the writ petition as filed by the employer-University (CWP No.5431/2005) remained pending and was ultimately considered by another learned Single Judge of this Court on 18.11.2005. The basic contention as urged before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition so filed by the appellant-University had been that the Labour Court was not justified in recording the finding that the workman had worked for the requisite 240 days only on the basis of so called adverse inference against the employer. The learned Single Judge took note of the fact situation of the case and, after finding no error in the findings and conclusion reached by the learned Labour Court, proceeded to dismiss the writ petition summarily. The learned Single Judge observed and held as under:-

"It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the burden was on the workman to prove to have worked for 240 days and since the workman had failed to prove it, the finding could not have been recorded on the basis of adverse inference being drawn against the petitioner, and thereby shifting the burden of proof upon the petitioner. In my view, the submission cannot be accepted, inasmuch as, the case of the workman was that he was working since 1985 and had worked upto 1996. As against this, the petitioner took the stand that as a matter of fact, the workman worked only three months in the year 1986 from 11.9.86 to 12.11.86, then he worked for 26 days in March 1990, 26 days in June 1990 and 14 days in September 1990. Then in the affidavit filed on behalf of the present petitioner also, the stand taken is the same in para- 3 of the affidavit. Thus, according to the petitioner, the workman never worked after working for 14 days in September 1990, and then the workman himself had voluntarily left the work. As against this, from the documents produced by the present petitioner, as noticed by the learned Labour Court, in the