[2025:RJ-JP:885] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6287/2015 Fakir Mohammad S/o Shri Gulab Khan, aged 50 years, R/o Labour Colony, Quarter No. G-92, Cement Factory, Sawaimadhopur ----Petitioner Versus 1. D.F.O. Up Nideshak, Tiger Project (Core) National Park, Ranthambore, Sawaimadhopur. 2. Kshetriya Van Adhikari, Tiger Project (Core) National Park, Ranthambore, Sawaimadhopur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Girish Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 07/01/2025 1. Instant civil writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was filed by the petitioner way back on 3rd April, 2015, impugning the award dated 05.01.2015, passed in LCR Case No. 322/1999, whereby and whereunder, the Labour Court, Bharatpur decided the reference in negative against the workman and dismissed his claim. 2. Having perused the record, it appears that the petitioner was appointed as Cattle Guard on 24.08.1976 and he continued to work from 24.08.1976 to 14.06.1995 but his service was terminated orally on 15.06.1995, which was later amended by the order of 01.07.2013 and the date of termination was incorporated as 01.04.1979. On raising such dispute and after failure of re- [2025:RJ-JP:885] (2 of 4) [CW-6287/2015] conciliation, reference was made to the Labour Court in following terms:- " क्या उप वन संरक्षक एवं उप निनदेशक बाघ परिरयोजना (कोर) राष्ट्र ीय उद्यान रणथम्भौर, सवाईमाधोपुर एवं (2) क्षेत्रीय जन अनिधकारी बाघ परिरयोजना (कोर) राष्ट्र ीय उद्यान रणथम्भौर, सवाईमाधोपुर द्वारा श्रनिमक श्री फकीर मोहम्मद पुत्र श्री गुलाब खं के टलगार्ड/ को निदनांक 01.04.1979 से सेवा से पृथक निकया जाना उनि1त एवं वैध है? यनिद नहीं तो श्रनिमक निकस राहत एवं रानिश को पाने का अनिधकारी है ? 3. After recording evidence of both parties and on perusal of record, the Labour Court considered the reference on merits and recorded a fact finding that the workman had approached the conciliation officer in the year 1999, i.e. after a delay of about 20 years from the alleged date of his termination, which is 01.04.1979. The Labour Court observed that apart from the fact that the petitioner has raised the dispute after a delay of 20 years from his verbal termination, but on merits as well, he has not been able to establish that he had rendered work for a continuous period of 240 days in the preceding calendar year from the date of his termination. 4. The Labour Court has observed that as per the affidavit and record produced by the respondents, petitioner rendered services of 108 days in the year 1978 and 15 days in the year 1979, thus, total of 123 days only. It is noteworthy that petitioner-workman has not produced any supportive evidence to establish his case of rendering services for 240 days, prior to his termination. In that view, the onus has not been discharged by the petitioner- workman and the question of drawing an adverse inference against the respondent-department does not arise at all. 5. This Court is of the view that the findings recorded by the Labour Court are in consonance with the legal proposition laid [2025:RJ-JP:885] (3 of 4) [CW-6287/2015] down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.M. Yellati v. Asstt. Executive Engineer [(2006) 1 SCC 106], which has also been relied upon by Delhi High Court in case of Dhara v. Presiding Officer & Anr. [2007 141 DLT 104], whereby it was held that the burden of proof is on the claimant to show that he had worked for 240 days in a given year, prior to his termination. Mere self-serving statements and affidavit will not suffice in the matter of discharge of burden, until or unless the workman either calls upon the employer to produce the nominal muster roll before the court for the given period or takes plea of suppression of such records by the management. Since, in the present case, either of the criteria, as laid down in the above-mentioned judgment, is not met, it would not be appropriate to draw an adverse inference against the department for non-production of muster rolls. 6. Having gone through the fact findings of the Labour Court in the impugned award, this Court does not find any perversity and jurisdictional error therein and the impugned award does not warrant any interference by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In support thereof, judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Estralla Rubber Vs. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. [(2001) 8 SCC 97], explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as under:- “The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this Article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The [2025:RJ-JP:885] (4 of 4) [CW-6287/2015] High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the courts subordinate or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunal is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or Tribunal has come to.” (emphasis supplied) 7. For the aforesaid reasons, impugned order do not call for any interference by the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, instant writ petition is hereby dismissed. 8. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J Sachin/28