SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the award passed by the Labour Court dated 23.04.1998, by means of which, the Labour Court has set aside the order of termination of services of respondent No. 3, Om Prakash Pandey and has directed for his reinstatement along with continuity in service and all consequential benefits arising there from. Additionally, a cost of Rs. 100/- has also been directed to be paid to the workman concerned.

2. The respondent No. 3 had raised industrial dispute, which was referred under section 4-K of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court by the State Government on 24.11.1990 as to whether "the services of Om Prakash Pandey, the workman concerned have been terminated illegally w.e.f. 01.01.1981 and to what benefit the workman would be entitled in case such termination is held as illegal".

3. The case set up by the workman concerned in his written statement is that he was appointed as a 'helper' and worked in the establishment of the employer w.e.f. 01.07.1979 upto 31.12.1980. He was not being given the benefits admissible to a regular employee and therefore, he gave representations, which annoyed the employer and it terminated the services illegally. Even though he approached the employer for work, he was not engaged after 31.12.1980 and no retrenchment compensation was given to him.

4. The employer UPSRTC filed its written statement as well as documentary evidence, in which it alleged that the respondent-workman had been engaged on daily wage basis for one month only as helper by order dated 10.11.1980. This engagement was extended on 29.11.1980 upto 30.12.1980. In terms of the order of engagement, the services of workman was for fixed term and after expiry of term, no further engagement was done. Such termination of engagement on the basis of fixed term employment would not be treated as retrenchment and no retrenchment compensation was therefore given to the workman concerned. Moreover, certain other issues with regard to maintainability of the reference were also raised by UPSRTC.

5. Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner states that from perusal of the award impugned in this writ petition, it is evident that documentary evidence was filed in support of claim made in the written statement by the employer, which was disregarded by the Labour Court only because no officer of the Corporation appeared to give oral evidence.

6. A perusal of paragraph 11 of the award in question would show that the employer, although did not give any oral evidence, had filed several documents, which the Labour Court has observed would not have helped them to establish their case. Since oral evidence was not given in support of these documents, therefore, they were disregarded, even when the employee had not questioned their veracity or correctness.

7. On the other hand, Labour Court had relied upon the written statement as well as oral evidence of the workman concerned that his engagement was for not for a particular time period as alleged but that he had worked for more than 240 days during the preceding 12 months. The workman concerned did not however produce any documentary evidence with regard to regular appointment at all. The written statement as well as oral evidence of the workman could not have been relied upon as they are only self-serving statements without any documentary proof. No appointment letter, nor wage slips etc. were produced before the Labour Court by the workman concerned.

8. It has been argued that without considering the issues raised in the written statement or documentary evidence produced by the employer that the workman had been engaged only for a fixed period of one month initially and it was later on extended for another one month, the Labour Court has decided the case in favour of the workman.

9. Mr. Amrendra Nath Rai, learned counsel for the respondent however, has tried to contend before this Court that the Labour Court has passe