[2025:RJ-JP:9793] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.23533/2018 Fakeerchand S/o Shri Parmaram, Aged About 53 Years, By Caste Jatav, R/o Nagla Purohit, Tehsil Bayana, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Engineer, Irrigation, Subdivision Bayana, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.) ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naresh Kumar Singhal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikas Jain for Mr. Gopal Krishan Sharma, Addl. GC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 05/03/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned award dated 27.08.2018, passed by the Labour Court while deciding Case No. LCR 1840/2014 by which the statement of claim submitted by the petitioner against his termination order dated 01.01.1989 has been rejected. 2. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner-workman (hereinafter referred to as “workman”) filed a statement of claim before the Labour Court stating therein that he was appointed on 01.01.1984, as a Beldar by the respondent-department but his services were terminated on 01.01.1989, without issuing any notice and without making any payment of compensation. It was also pleaded that before passing the order impugned, the mandatory provisions contained under Section 25-F, 25- G & 25- [2025:RJ-JP:9793] (2 of 2) [CW-23533/2018] sH of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1947”) were not followed. 3. After considering the documents and evidence available on the record, the Labour Court recorded a finding of fact that the workman has failed to establish on record that he had worked with the respondent-department continuously for a period of 240 days in the preceding year as the record furnished by the respondents indicated that the petitioner hardly worked with the respondent- department for approximately 154 days. On the basis of the documents furnished by the respondents, a categorical finding was recorded that the petitioner has failed to prove that he had worked with the respondent for more than 240 days in a preceding calendar year. 4. Apart from above, it was also observed that the dispute was raised by the petitioner after a delay of more than 15 years without giving any justification for such delay. 5. Considering the above factual aspect of the matter, the impugned award has been passed by passing a reasoned and speaking order, which requires no interference of this Court. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. All applications (pending, if any) also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/91