JUDGMENT

Piyush Agrawal, J.

Heard learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gopal Narain Shrivastva, learned counsel for the respondents.

The present writ petition has been filed against the award dated 18.11.1996 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Tribunl, Agra.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent no.2 was working as a daily wager in the establishment of the petitioner. The petitioner claimed to be appointed on the permanent post of peon on 14.12.1981 in the establishment of the petitioner and his services were terminated illegally for which a reference was made. But the petitioner has averred that the respondent no.2 was working as a daily wager on muster roll and was an adhoc employee having no legal right for availing salary as a regular employee as he did not continuously work for 240 days as per the provision of 2 (g) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is further averred that the reference as well as the impugned order is bad in the eye of law, hence the present writ petition.

3. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the respondent no.2 was a daily wager and did not work as a regular employee and impugned order directing for reinstatement along with back wages is bad. He further submits that it is the duty of the employee to prove by cogent material to show that he worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. He further submits that there is no material to support the claim made by respondent no.2., so he prays of allowing of the present writ petition.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondent no.2 worked in the establishment of the petitioner from 14.12.1981 to 8.4.1986. He further submits that the material has been brought on record to show that the respondent no.2 worked with the petitioner's establishment. He further submits that the petitioner, on the one hand, has filed the documents admitting that the petitioner had worked from 1.7.1985 to 31.12.1985 but during the cross-examination, did not accept that the petitioner even worked in its establishment and the petitioner were blowing hot and cold at the same time, which cannot be permitted.

5. He further submits that, two certificates were brought on record to show that the respondent no.2 had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year, which have neither been denied nor any material contrary to it was brought on record to show that that respondent no.2 did not work for more than 240 days in a calendar year.

6. In support of his contention, he relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of R.M. Yellatti v. Asstt. Executive Engineer; (2006) 1 SCC 106 and prays for dismissal of the present writ petition.

7. Admittedly, the case of the petitioner is that the respondent no.2 worked as a daily wager on muster roll and he was an ad-hoc employee to which no legal right for salary of a regular employee can be paid as he failed to bring on record the material to show that he has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. But, the impugned order itself shows that in cross-examination, the certificate was duly issued by the petitioner-officer and the same has neither been disbelieved nor any cogent material was brought on record to show that it was forged documents. Once, the certificate which shows that the respondent no.2 worked continuously for more than 240 days in a calendar year, the impugned order cannot be interfered.

8. Furthermore, in the case of R.M. Yellatta (supra), the Supreme Court has specifically in para 29 has held as under:-

"Before concluding, we would like to make an observation with regard to cases concerning retrenchment/termination of services of daily waged earners, particu