[2025:RJ-JP:22403-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 527/2025 Mrs. Promila Srivastava W/o Shri Anil Kumar Shrivastava, Aged About 64 Years, Resident of 50/180, Rajat Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus The Secretary, Rajasthan Khadi Gramodyog Board, Jaipur (Raj.) J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Ms. Neetu Mathur Mr. V.D. Agnihotri For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 28/05/2025 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 11.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11063/2023, whereby the writ petition filed on behalf of the appellant against the award dated 09.08.2017 passed by the learned Labour Court was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge has committed serious error in dismissing the claim filed on behalf of the workman. Learned counsel further submits that the workman has worked on different posts continuously for 240 days in one calendar year, therefore, the prayer of the appellant deserves to be allowed. [2025:RJ-JP:22403-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-527/2025] 3. We have heard counsel for the appellant and perused the award passed by the learned Labour Court dated 09.08.2017 as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 11.03.2025. 4. The learned Single Judge while considering the award passed by the learned Labour Court has observed as under:- “5. Perusal of record indicates that initially the petitioner was appointed as daily wager by the respondents on 06.09.1984 and she worked till 07.11.1984, thereafter, she was re-engaged on 23.05.1985 and continued to work till 10.11.1985. Thereafter, there was a gap of more than one and half month and the she was re-engaged on 24.12.1985. hence, it is clear that the petitioner has hardly worked for a period of 160 days with the respondents. 6. It is an admitted position that though the petitioner has worked with the respondent w.e.f. 06.09.1984 till 01.06.1986. but there was break in her service during the year 1984 1985 and 1986 and from 24.12.1985 till 01.06.1986, hence, the petitioner has worked only for 160 days prior to the date of her termination, which is lower then the required period of 240 days of working, as per the mandate contained under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 7. The issue involved in this petition has already been decided by the Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Ali vs. State of H.P. and Others while deciding Civil Appeal No.3803/2018 on 16.04.2018. 8. A finding of fact has been recorded on the basis of the evidence led by both sides that the petitioner has failed to establish that she has worked continuously for a period of more than 240 days in a preceding calendar year. A reasoned and cogent order has been passed by the Labour Court while rejecting the claim of the petitioner, which requires no interference of this Court. 9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.” 5. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge as the petitioner has failed to establish his [2025:RJ-JP:22403-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-527/2025] working with the respondent for 240 days in one calendar year preceding to his date of termination. 6. We have also considered the fact that the appellant has raised the dispute after a delay of 16 years. 7. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. Hence, this appeal is dismissed. 8. Pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J DIVYA /166