1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1669 OF 2010. The state of Mah. and anr. ..vs.. Ganesh Govinda Barde Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 3, 2010. Mr.Fulzele, learned A.G.P. for the respondent/State, contends that there is no specific finding that respondent completed 240 days in preceding 12 months prior to his termination. According to him, abstract of attendance produced by the petitioner clearly reveals the non-completion of 240 days and Labour Court has erroneously overlooked the aspect of the burden. Advocate Meghe, learned counsel for the respondent, points out that the petitioner initially contended that there was no termination on 10/10/1993 but the respondent absconded from work. He has further invited attention to evidence of petitioner to show that the juniors were continued in service. Conclusions recorded by the Labour Court reveal that the Labour Court has found that the story of termination deposed to by witness was not pleaded in 2 written statement. It has further found that the written statement disclosed defence of completion of work. In this view of the matter, it has observed that employer ought to have produced records for period after 10/10/1993. The conclusion reached by it clearly shows that employee was in service since 25/12/1988 till 9/2/1994. The fact that employees, who joined on 25/4/1989 continued in employment has also come on record. These findings are accepted by Industrial Court in Revision under Section 44 of M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P.Act. Respondent was only an employee on daily wages and has been directed to be reinstated as daily wager without back wages. Continuity granted is only for the purposes of finding out his entitlement to work. It is contention of learned counsel for the respondent that even today the respondent is getting work on daily wages. In this situation, I do not find that any prejudice is caused to the petitioner in the matter. Writ petition is rejected. No costs. JUDGE Chute