[2025:RJ-JP:37589] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17668/2011 Jai Singh S/o Shri Guman Singh Gurjar, aged about 44 years, R/o Chhokarwada, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Judge, Labour Court No.2, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Dy. Forest Conservator, Social Forestry, Dausa. 3. Regional Forest Officer, Bandikui. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yogesh Pujari on behalf of Mr. D.P. Pujari For Respondent(s) : None present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 16/09/2025 1. By way of filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the award dated 11.11.2010 passed by the Labour Court No.2, Jaipur, whereby reference relating to termination of services of the petitioner w.e.f. 18.07.1987 has been answered by the learned Labour Court against the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner was initially engaged as Cattle Guard in respondent- Forest Department on 01.09.1986, and he continuously worked till 18.07.1987, and thereafter, his services were terminated without following the provisions of Section 25(F) of Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules, 1957 (for short, 'the Rules of 1957'). Neither any notice was issued to the petitioner prior to his termination, nor was he paid any wages in lieu of notice. Thereafter, industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner by way of submitting an [2025:RJ-JP:37589] (2 of 4) [CW-17668/2011] application before the Conciliation Officer on 20.08.1996 i.e., after a period of nine years from the date of termination. However, no compromise could take place between the parties, and failure report was submitted by the Conciliation Officer to the appropriate Government. The appropriate Government referred the matter for adjudication before the Labour Court No.2, Jaipur, in which terms of reference were as to whether, termination of services of the petitioner w.e.f. 18.07.1987 was valid and proper and if not, for what relief the petitioner was entitled. 2. Thereafter, statement of claim was filed by the petitioner, which was responded to by the respondent-Department by way of filing a reply to the statement. After recording evidence, award dated 11.11.2010 was passed by the learned Labour Court, whereby reference was answered against the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has successfully proven before the Tribunal that the petitioner-workman has completed more than 240 days in the calendar year preceding his date of termination. However, instead of treating the termination to be invalid and in violation of Section 25(F) of the Rules of 1957, the statement given by the respondent-Department in reply to the claim of petition, alleging that the petitioner had himself left the services, has been beleived upon by the learned Labour Court and by drawing erroneous assumption, the reference has been answered against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent-Department did not produce any material on record so as to suggest that the petitioner himself has abandoned [2025:RJ-JP:37589] (3 of 4) [CW-17668/2011] the services. Under these circumstances, the findings of leaving the services by the petitioner himself, drawn by the learned Labour Court, is not only erroneous but is also conjectural in nature. He prayed for quashing the award dated 11.11.2010 and to grant direction of reinstatement of services by holding the termination illegal. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 6. It has been admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after alleged termination of services of the petitioner on 18.07.1987, first time industrial dispute was raised in the year 1996 i.e., after nine years from the date of termination. 7. From the perusal of the award, it is evident that during his cross-examination, the petitioner himself had admitted that he is not keeping well from the year 1987-1992. 8. It is a settled proposition of law that one who approaches the Court must stand on his own legs. In the present case the petitioner-workman was required to prove before the Court that even after his alleged termination, he had submitted some application or representation before the respondents requesting them to be taken back into service. Admittedly, no such application or representation was ever filed by the petitioner. The respondents, in reply to the statement of claim, have categorically stated that the petitioner had voluntarily abandoned the services, and on the basis of such material on record, a clear factual finding have been given by the learned Labour Court. Delay of nearly nine years in raising the dispute also indicates that the petitioner was not willing to continue his services. Under these [2025:RJ-JP:37589] (4 of 4) [CW-17668/2011] circumstances, where the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the award passed by the learned Labour Court is extremely limited, I find no ground to interfere in the impugned award. 9. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner, is hereby, dismissed. 10. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/32