JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the award of the labour court, Varanasi, dated 8.9.1995, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, passed in Adjudication Case Nos. 145, 146 and 148 of 1989 and 53 of 1998, whereby the labour court has rejected the claim of the petitioners-workmen on the ground that the workmen concerned are not covered by the definition of 'workman' and their alleged termination cannot be said to be covered by the definition of retrenchment, inasmuch as petitioners Amar Nath, Surendra Nath Singh Yadav and Lalji Singh Yadav have worked from 1.3.1987 to 31.5.1987 ; 24.2.1987 to 23.5.1987 and 21.2.1987 to 20.5.1987, respectively for a period of three months. With regard to another workman, namely, Hosiyar Prasad involved in other adjudication case, since the labour court has accepted his case, therefore, this petition has been filed by three petitioners, whereby the labour court refused to grant them any relief and answered the reference against them.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned standing counsel representing the respondent No. 1 as well as Sri G. D. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.
3. After the notices were issued by the labour court, the parties have exchanged their pleadings and adduced evidences. According to the petitioners-workmen, they were appointed in the establishment of the respondent-employer on the dates referred to as stated above and their services have been terminated w.e.f. 1.6.1987 without giving any notice and without complying with the provisions of Section 6N of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). It is also the case set up by the workmen that the employer have also not complied with the provision of last come first go, inasmuch as such workmen, who were appointed subsequent to these workmen, have been retained in service, whereas the petitioners' services have been illegally terminated. It is further stated that the job on which the petitioners were appointed was permanent in nature and that their attendance were being recorded on the attendance register and according to their attendance, they were paid wages.
4. The employer in their written statement has taken the stand that since in the establishment of the employer, the supply of milk has increased from the month of September to February and March as a result thereof the work in the establishment increased, therefore, these petitioners were appointed, as stated above, for a fixed period and it was made clear in the letters of appointment itself that their services will stand automatically terminated after expiry of the period for which they were appointed, although notices were issued to them, in this regard. It is further stated by the employer that since according to Section 2(oo)(BB) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central), it is not a retrenchment and since workmen have not worked 240 days in a calendar year, they will not come under the definition of workman, therefore, there is no need to comply with Section 6N of the Act. The workmen further stated that employer were directed to produce the attendance register in order to prove that the workmen concerned have not worked for less than 240 days in a year and that their appointment were made for fixed period. The employer in its turn produced photo stat copy of the alleged appointment and attendance register from the month from February, 1986 to May, 1987, but the originals thereof have not been produced inspite of specific directions have been issued on the application moved by the petitioners-workmen before the labour court. The labour court arriving at the conclusion took the view that in the absence of the originals, the photo stat copies which are not duly proved and cannot be accepted in evidence and for this purposes the petitioners have relied upon a decision of this Court in Divisional Railway Manager v. Zonal Working, Uttar Railway, Kanpur and Anr., 1990 (1) UPLBEC 451. In the aforesaid Judgment, in para 2 it has been observed, "The workmen were not in possession of all the records, as such the Railway Administration was asked by the labour court to produce the relevant records including the attendance register and from the perusal of the award of the labour court, it appears that complete record had not been produced by the Railway before the labour court." In para 3 it has been observed, "In the absence of complete records, the labour court has drawn adverse inference against the employer. On the basis of adverse inference as well as the joint inspection report filed on 29.1.1986, the labour court has held that 28 out of 207 workmen, whose case was referred to it, have worked for more than 240 days. This is a finding of fact and cannot be interfered in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
5. In the aforesaid case, the matter was remanded back to the labour court, as there was some dispute with regard to some workmen and further that the original records were not produced, but here in the present case, it has come in the evidence that the employers' case is that the photocopies are being filed and the originals cannot be filed as the same have been removed by the workmen concerned. In view of the findings recorded by the labour court wherein the labour court has refused to accept the case set up by the employer only on the ground that the originals were not produced, though sufficient explanation has been given by the employer, which is already on record. The view taken by the labour court that in the absence of the originals an adverse inference has to be drawn against the employer suffers from the manifest error of law. The categorical case stand taken by the employer that each of the petitioners have been issued letter of appointment and it has been made clear in it that their appointments are for a fixed term for a period of three months and would come to an automatic end after the expiry of the aforesaid period. The workmen were supposed to be in possession of the said documents, but deliberately not produced the same, nor did the same asked for by the employer to produce the same. There is no evidence also on record from which it can be inferred that even in the teeth of the fixed term appointment any of the petitioners have worked for at least 240 days in the preceding calendar year before the termination of their services before 1.6.1987. Since the date of appointment has not been denied and possibly cannot be denied by the workmen concerned, the date of termination is also admitted to the parties, particularly to the workmen-petitioners, even the simple calculation makes it clear that none of the workmen has completed 240 days before their services were terminated as alleged on 1.6.1987. In this view of the matter, this award does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition therefore, deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, parties shall bear their own costs.