did not resume his duty and he was informed by letter dated 29.05.1997. Since he was not reporting on service since long, he cannot be retained in service. It also appears that the workman was working in “Ambika Bhojanalaya”. It also appears from the oral evidence of both the sides that the specific stand of the present petitioner is that the workman was working as “Pirsaniya” on daily wages and the workman was irregular in attending the same and he himself has abandoned the service. The Labour Court has held that though the workman was working on daily basis and he was irregular in his attendance, no notice or departmental inquiry has been initiated against the workman by the petitioner – employer. This view of the Labour Court is not proper in the eyes of law as the workman was working on daily basis. It was for the workman to produce on record the necessary evidence as to his regular attendance and having worked for 240 days in preceding calender year. It also appears that the workman has not given any notice for production of documentary evidence by the employer before the Labour Court. Now, it is well settled by catena of decisions of the Apex Court that mere stand of the workman is that he has worked for 240 days without any documentary evidence cannot be accepted as it is. It is also well settled that in case, the employer do not submit the documentary evidence, which is lying with them, the workman may file an application before the Labour Court for production of such documents and in case of failure on
