petitioners would argue that respondent No.1 claimed to have been engaged by petitioner No.2 on the post of Watchman, but failed to prove his employment under petitioner No.1 by adducing proper evidence. It is for respondent No.1 to prove by admissible piece of evidence that he continuously worked for 240 days in preceding twelve months of date of his alleged removal from service, which he utterly failed. Respondent No.1 approached the authority concerned against his removal from service after lapse of around 10 years from the date on which cause of action arose in his favour. Labour Judge has not considered aforesaid aspects of matter though specific pleading has been made by petitioners in this regard in their reply to statement of claim of respondent No.1. No documentary evidence in support of his claim has been brought on record by respondent No.1, except his oral statement. Specific period of limitation is not prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947') and in some judgements it has been held that provisions of the Limitation Act will not apply, but in case of Prabhkar vs. Joint Director Sericulture Department reported (2015) 15 SCC 1 it has been held that although there is no limitation is prescribed under the Act of 1947 for making a reference, but workman should approach the competent authority within reasonable time. In this case, respondent No.1 approached the labour Commissioner for making reference of dispute after about 10 years of his removal from service, hence claim of respondent No.1 is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and
