[2025:RJ-JP:17119] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2594/2004 Smt Kamla Regar, W/o Shri Ramswaroop Regar, aged about 44 years, R/o Cantonment Toak ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Judge Labour Court Jaipur 2. Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Sub-Division-2, Tonk ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Babu Lal Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sharad Joshi, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 23/04/2025 This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the award dated 18.05.1999 passed by learned Labour Court no.2, Jaipur (for brevity, ‘learned Labour Court’) in LCR No.989/1998 whereby, the reference has been answered against the petitioner/workman (for brevity, ‘workman’). The relevant facts in brief are that the workman filed a claim petition stating therein that she was appointed with the respondent-Department on a post equivalent to the post of Beldar on 01.01.1987 and her services were retrenched on 31.03.1990 in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, “Act of 1947”). It was, therefore, prayed that the order of retrenchment be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to reinstate her back in service with all consequential benefits. [2025:RJ-JP:17119] (2 of 3) [CW-2594/2004] The respondent, in its reply, denying the averments made in the statement of claim, submitted that the petitioner did not work for a period of 240 days in the relevant calendar year. After recording the evidence led by the respective parties, the learned Labour Court dismissed the claim petition vide award impugned dated 18.05.1999. Assailing the award, learned counsel for the workman submits that findings of the learned Labour Court are against the evidence on record. He submits that the learned Labour Court did not appreciate that the workman was able to establish that she had worked for a period of 240 days or more in the relevant calendar year. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the award impugned dated 18.05.1999 be quashed and set aside and the respondent be directed be reinstate her back in service with all consequential benefits. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, supporting the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard. Considered. While dismissing the claim petition, learned Labour Court has held that while, before the Conciliation Officer, the workman has disclosed the date of appointment as 01.04.1989, in the statement of claim, she has claimed to have been appointed on 01.01.1987; but, the Ex. W1, the certificate reflects the date of appointment as March, 1989. It was further observed by the learned Labour Court that in the reference made by the State Government under Section 10(1)(b) of the Act, the date of retrenchment is stated to be 31.01.1990 whereas, in the [2025:RJ-JP:17119] (3 of 3) [CW-2594/2004] statement of claim and in the affidavit filed by the workman, the date was claimed to be 31.03.1990. It was held that despite pendency of the claim petition for a long period, the workman made no attempt to get the aforesaid date corrected/amended. Further, after appreciating the evidence led by the respective parties especially, the certificate (Ex.W1) issued by the Assistant Engineer and relied upon by the workman himself, it was held that the workman failed to establish that she had worked for a period of 240 days in the relevant calendar year in absence whereof, there could be no violation of the provisions of the Act of 1947. Learned counsel for the workman has not been able to demonstrate the aforesaid factual findings to be suffering from any perversity or illegality so as to warrant interference of this Court, under its limited supervisory jurisdiction vide Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in the well reasoned award passed by the learned Labour Court. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J DIKSHA /135