[2025:RJ-JP:19468] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6807/2006 Kana Ram Son Of Shri Rudhamal ageda bout 40 years, R/o Gram Kishan Pura District Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Judge Of Labour 1, Jaipur 2. Chief Engineer, Jaipur Vidhut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Near Ram Mindar, Jaipur 3. Executive Engineer, Jaipur Vidhut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Near Ram Mindar, Jaipur 4. Assistant Engineer, Jaipur Vidhut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Power House, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yogesh Pujari For Respondent(s) : Mr. Virendra Kumar Lodha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ankit Rathore HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 08/05/2025 This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the award dated 01.02.2005 passed by the learned Labour Court First, Jaipur (for brevity, 'learned Labour Court') in LCR No.5/1995 whereby, while answering the reference against the petitioner/workman (for brevity, 'workman'), the statement of claim filed by him has been dismissed. The relevant facts in brief are that workman filed a statement of claim stating therein that he was appointed as daily wages helper in the office of the respondents no.2 to 4 on 03.10.1989 and by the time of retrenchment of his services on [2025:RJ-JP:19468] (2 of 3) [CW-6807/2006] 25.01.1993, he had worked in different offices. Alleging retrenchment of the services to be in violation of the provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, 'Act of 1947'), it was prayed that the respondents be directed to reinstate him back in service with all consequential benefits. However, the learned Labour Court, after recording evidence of the respective parties, vide its award impugned in the writ petition dated 01.02.2005, dismissed the statement of claim. Assailing the award, learned counsel for the workman submits that the learned Labour Court erred in not appreciating that from the evidence on record, he was able to establish that from the date of appointment, i.e., 03.10.1989 till the date of retrenchment of services, i.e., 25.01.1993, he has rendered the services for a period of 240 days or more and therefore, dismissal of the statement of claim is not tenable in the eye of law. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the award impugned dated 01.02.2005 be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to reinstate him back in service with all consequential benefits. Heard. Considered. The learned Labour Court has, after appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the workman has failed to establish to have worked for a period of 240 days or more in the relevant calendar year. This Court is in respectful agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court. As per para no.2 of the statement of claim, the petitioner has worked in the last calendar year only from 23.09.1992 till 25.01.1993. Even counting [2025:RJ-JP:19468] (3 of 3) [CW-6807/2006] this entire period, it is not established that he has worked for period of 240 days in the relevant calendar year. Contention of learned counsel for the workman to count his total length of service i.e. from 03.10.1989 till 25.01.1993 to compute the period of 240 days, is misconceived and does not merit acceptance. Under Section 25B of the Act of 1947, it is categorically provided that the period of 240 days has to be counted in the 12 calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, i.e., the date of retrenchment of services. Since, indisputably, the workman has not rendered the service during the relevant calendar year for a period of 240 days, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Labour Court did not err in dismissing the statement of claim. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J PRAGATI/29