[2025:RJ-JP:3525-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 667/2024 Mahendra Kumar Son Of Shri Kanhaiyalal Sharma, Aged About 47 Years, Through General Secretary, Rajasthan Forest Department Majdoor Sangh, Kota Division, Kota. ----Appellant Versus Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Department (West), District Baran, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Satish Chandra Pachori, through VC For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 24/01/2025 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge while passing of the order dated 18.07.2024 has failed to consider the fact that the petitioner has worked for more than 240 days. We have gone through the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 18.07.2024, where in after considering the record following order was passed:- "While dismissing the claim petition, the learned labour Court has observed that the petitioner could not establish from the evidence placed on record that he has worked for a period of 240 days in the last twelve calender months before the alleged date of his retrenchment. It was held that merely because in the certificate (exhibit-W5) [2025:RJ-JP:3525-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-667/2024] issued by the respondents it was mentioned he has worked for 01.05.1984 to 15.01.1986, no inference could be drawn that he has, as a matter of fact, worked for a period of 240 days in the preceding twelve calender months from 15.01.1986. Relying upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Surendranagar District Panchayat and Ors.. Vs. Gangaben Lalji Bhai and Ors. 2006(2) SCJ 408 (SCC) and RMLT Vs. Assistant Executive Engineer 2006(108) FLR 213 (SCC), it was observed that it is bounden duty of the workman to establish that he has worked for a period of 240 days or more in the relevant calender year for succeeding in the claim petition in which the petitioner has miserably failed. Despite opportunity, learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate the aforesaid findings to be perverse or illegal. In view thereof, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the well reasoned finding recorded by the learned Labour Court based on evidence on record and the sound legal proposition in its limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India." We have also considered the fact that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition relying upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference by this Court in this matter. Hence, the present appeal stands dismissed. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Upendra Pratap Singh /38