1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4812 of 2011 Ravindra Atmaram Wagh. Vs. The Executive Engineer Public Works Division, Wardha and another. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. A.J. Salway, Adv. for the petitioner. Mrs. Rashi Deshpande, AGP for the respondents. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 11 th November, 2011. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Labour Court, Wardha, on 13th April, 2009 answering the reference in the negative and against the petitioner. The petitioner claimed that he was appointed as a labourer on daily wages in the guest house at Pulgaon from 12.8.1982 and his services were terminated w.e.f. 1.5.1985. The petitioner pleaded that the services of his juniors were regularized whereas he was wrongfully terminated though he had put in 240 days service before his termination. The Labour Court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record answered the reference in the negative and against the petitioner who had prayed for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages. It is necessary to note that the petitioner had initiated the conciliation proceedings before the Labour Officer, Wardha, as belatedly as on 9.11.1998 challenging the alleged termination dated 1.5.1985 after a lapse of 13 years without sufficiently explaining the inordinate delay. The Labour Court, on a proper 2 appreciation of the evidence on record held that the petitioner had failed to prove that he had completed 240 days of continuous service as contemplated under section 25(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Though the Labour Court came to a conclusion that the services of the petitioner, a daily wager, were terminated on 1.5.1985, there was nothing on record to show that the petitioner was appointed on 12.8.1982. The identity card and several other documents were considered by the Court to hold that the petitioner had failed to prove that he had continuously worked for 240 days before his termination. The Court thought that it was not safe to rely on the bare statement of the petitioner in this regard. The Labour Court rightly held that no adverse inference could be drawn against the respondents for not producing the record of the years 1982 to 1985 as the record is normally destroyed after five years and the petitioner had approached in the conciliation proceedings 13 years after his alleged termination. The finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court cannot be faulted with and needs no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan.