[2025:RJ-JP:33655] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14398/2018 Ratan Lal Banjara S/o Roopa Ji Banjara, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Ganj Khedli, Post Barooni, Teh. Kishanganj, District Baran (Through Mahamantri, Irrigation Employee Union Bengal Colony, Chhavni, Baran) ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Sub Division Vilas Pariyojna Bhanwargarh Baran ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Chander Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saumil Sharma for Mr. Gopal Krishan Sharma, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 25/08/2025 This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the award dated 19.12.2017 passed by the learned Labour Court, Kota (for brevity, “learned Labour Court”) in LCR No.46/2006 whereby, while answering the reference against the petitioner-workman (for short, “workman”), his statement of claim has been dismissed. The relevant facts in brief are that the workman filed a statement of claim stating therein that he was appointed as Beldar on daily wages basis by the respondent on 01.12.1984; but, he was retrenched from service on 01.04.1987 in violation of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘Act of 1947’). After hearing the learned counsels, the learned Labour Court passed the award impugned dated 19.12.2017 in the manner stated hereinabove. [2025:RJ-JP:33655] (2 of 3) [CW-14398/2018] Assailing the award, learned counsel for the workman submitted that the learned Labour Court did not appreciate from the evidence on record, he was able to establish to have worked for a period of 240 days or more in the relevant calendar year and therefore, erred in dismissing the statement of claim. He further submits that so far as the delay of 16 years in raising the Industrial Dispute is concerned, it was not fatal in the facts and circumstances of the case. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed, the award impugned dated 19.12.2017 be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to reinstate him back in service with all consequential benefits. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, disputing and denying the submissions raised and supporting the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard. Considered. While passing the award impugned, the learned Labour Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, held that the workman has failed to establish his claim to have worked for a period of 240 days or more in the relevant calendar year by leading any cogent evidence. It was observed in the award impugned that except making a bald averment in the statement of claim and in the affidavit that he had worked from 01.12.1984 till 31.03.1987, he did not lead any evidence whatsoever; whereas, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Surendranagar District Panchayat and Others vs. Gangaben Laljibhai and Others: 2006 (2) ACJ 408 (SC) and R.M. Yellati vs. Assistant Executive Engineer: 2006 (108) FLR 213 (SC), [2025:RJ-JP:33655] (3 of 3) [CW-14398/2018] it was incumbent upon the petitioner to lead evidence to establish that he had worked for a period of 240 days or more in the relevant calendar year. The learned Labour Court also held that the industrial dispute was raised with a delay of 16 years for which no plausible explanation was offered. Referring to the documents available on record in the shape of complaint/application filed by the workman on 04.01.2003 (EX. W3) and the failure memo dated 24.08.2004 (Ex. W7), it was held that indisputably, the dispute was raised with a delay of 16 years which was fatal in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Nedungadi Bank Limited vs. K.P. Madhvankutty and Others: 2000 Labour and Industrial 703 (SC) and State of Karnataka and Another vs. Ravi Kumar: 2009 (122) FLR 737 (SC). After going through the material on record, this Court is in respectful agreement with the findings so recorded by the learned Labour Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that the same suffer from any perversity or patent illegality so as to warrant interference of this Court under its limited supervisory jurisdiction vide Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 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 /79