[2025:RJ-JP:31524] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9245/2012 Shrawan Lal Son of Sooja Ram, Presently Residing At Plot No. 30, Kisan Dharam Kanta, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Engineer Sudhar First, Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Now Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Niga, Purana Power House, Near Ram Mandir, Jaipur. 2. The Judge, Labour Court No. 2, Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Govind Gupta for Mr. M.F. Baig For Respondent(s) : Ms. Neetu Bhansali HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 13/08/2025 1. The petitioner has challenged award dated 06.06.2011 passed by the learned Labour Court No.2, Jaipur (Rajasthan) (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Labour Court’) whereby, reference in respect of alleged termination of the petitioner has been answered against him. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner raised an industrial disputes with the allegations that he was engaged as workman in the office of respondent on 01.01.1990, however, he met with an accident on 23.03.1990 and on account of injuries sustained, he remained on leave as per medical advice and thereafter, he reported in the office of respondent on 01.06.1990, however, he was not taken back on duty. As per petitioner termination of his services is quite arbitrary and illegal. The persons who were appointed along with the petitioner are still working yet, while deciding the reference, the Labour Court has [2025:RJ-JP:31524] (2 of 2) [CW-9245/2012] given perverse findings and reference has been erroneously answered against the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. 5. It is an admitted case of the petitioner that he had worked only for 60 days therefore, the allegation with regard to not following the process before terminating the services is totally misplaced and inconceivable of the reason that the procedure contemplated under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is required to be followed only in the cases where the workman has completed at least 240 days continuous service in the calendar year immediately preceding his date of termination. 6. The allegation raised by the petitioner that the other workmen who were appointed along with the petitioner were still working whereas, services of the petitioner have been terminated, has also been examined by the Labour Court on the basis of material and evidence on record. A finding has been given that no documentary evidence in support of such allegation has been placed on record by the petitioner, whereas, the employer in its evidence has disputed such allegations. 7. In view of factual finding arrived at by the Labour Court, no interference is called for in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner has utterly failed to point out any material illegality or perversity in the impugned award, hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /66