1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR L. P. A. NO. 412 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2709 OF 2006 Asstt. Engineer Irrigation Research Sub Dn. Vs. Baliram Krishnaji Kubade ........................................................................................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................................................ Smt Bharti Dangre Addl. Govt. Pleader for appellant. CORAM: B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & A. P. BHANGALE JJ. DATED: 7th DECEMBER, 2011. . Heard learned Additional Government Pleader for appellant/employer. Appellants in Writ Petition under Article 226 and 227 are challenging the Award dated 27.09.2005 in IDA No. 56 of 1992. The Labour Court by that Award after finding continuous service of 240 days and violation of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act and after noticing the failure on part of employer to prove abandonment has granted relief of reinstatement with continuity but without back wages. The date of entering into service i. e. 14.07.1988 is not in dispute. According to respondent-workman he was terminated 2 on 18.09.1990 while according to appellant he abandoned on 23.06.1990. The workman has entered the witness box and deposed about his continuous service. Labour Court as also the learned Single Judge has maintained the finding of completion of 240 days. Before this Court the contention is continuous service of 240 days in proceeding 12 months prior to 18.09.1990 or then 23.06.1990 is not established. The documents to show abandonment or service rendered were in custody of present appellant. Those documents are not produced. The workman asserted completion of continuous service and that has been accepted by two Courts below. In this situation we do not see any perversity or jurisdictional error . Letters Patent Appeal is therefore rejected. JUDGE JUDGE svk