[2025:RJ-JP:34086] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1850/2011 Nattho Singh S/o Shri Nihal Singh Gurjar, R/o Nagala Ravji, Ravji Teh. And Distt. Bharatpur Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Judge Labour Court, Bharatpur. 2. Regional Forest Officer, Bharatpur. 3. Ranger, Forest Department, Range, Bharatpur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.M. Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aditya Singh, DGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 27/08/2025 This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the award dated 18.06.2010 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bharatpur (for brevity “the learned Labour Court”) in LCR No.148/2003 whereby, while answering the reference against the petitioner/workman (hereinafter referred to as “the workman”), the statement of claim filed by him was dismissed. The relevant facts in brief are that the workman filed a statement of claim stating therein that he was appointed as Cattle Guard with the respondents No.2 and 3 on 01.08.1982 but, he was retrenched from the services vide verbal order dated 01.07.1988 in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act of 1947”). After considering the [2025:RJ-JP:34086] (2 of 3) [CW-1850/2011] evidence available on record, the learned Labour Court dismissed the statement of claim vide award impugned dated 18.06.2010, in the manner as stated hereinabove. Assailing the award, learned counsel for the workman submits that the learned Labour Court did not appreciate that from the evidence on record, he was able to establish to have worked for 240 days or more in the relevant calendar year. He further submits that the learned Labour Court erred in passing the award impugned against him on the ground of delay in raising the industrial dispute. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the award impugned dated 18.06.2010 be quashed and set aside and the respondents No.2 and 3 be directed to reinstate him back in service with all consequential benefits. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3, disputing the submissions raised and supporting the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard. Considered. While answering the reference against the workman, the learned Labour Court has held that he has miserably failed to establish to have worked for 240 days or more in the relevant calendar year. It was observed that except making a bald assertion in the statement of claim to have worked for more than 240 days, the workman did not lead any evidence whereas, it is the well settled legal principle that it is for the workman to establish to have worked for 240 days or more in the relevant calendar year in order to claim the benefits under the provisions of the Act of 1947. It was also held by the learned Labour Court that [2025:RJ-JP:34086] (3 of 3) [CW-1850/2011] the workman has raised the industrial dispute with a delay of about fourteen and a half years for which no plausible explanation was offered. After going through the material available on record, this Court does not find the aforesaid findings to be suffering from any perversity or patent illegality so as to warrant interference of this Court under its limited supervisory jurisdiction vide Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, this civil writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Manish/111