[2025:RJ-JP:3873] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24620/2018 1. Veeri Singh Son of Galtu Singh, Aged About 51 Years, Resident of Village Chobe Ka Nangla, Post Aghapuur, Tehsil And District Bharatpur (Rajasthan). 2. Chandan Singh Son of Moola Ram, Resident of Village Chobe Ka Nangla, Post Aghapuur, Tehsil And District Bharatpur (Rajasthan). 3. Ramesh Chand Son of Dariyav Singh, Resident of Village Chobe Ka Nangla, Post Aghapuur, Tehsil And District Bharatpur (Rajasthan). 4. Tota Ram Son of Roop Singh, Resident of Village Aghapuur, Tehsil And District Bharatpur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioners Versus The Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Sub Division, Kumher, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan) ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gopal Krishan Sharma, AGC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 28/01/2025 1. By way of filing of this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 24.08.2018 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur (hereinafter referred as ‘Labour Court’) in LCR No. 803/2014, by which the Labour Court has rejected the claim petition filed by the petitioner-workmen (hereinafter referred to as ‘workmen’). [2025:RJ-JP:3873] (2 of 3) [CW-24620/2018] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the workmen were engaged as Beldar on 01.01.1987 and they continued on the same post till 31.08.1988, their services were terminated without issuing notice and without making any payment of compensation, which has resulted in a violation of the mandate contained under Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘Act of 1947’). Counsel submits that the petitioners have proved the fact before the Labour Court that they have worked with the respondent-department for more than 240 days but this fact was not appreciated by the Labour Court and the claim petition filed by the petitioners was subsequently, rejected. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners and submitted that no record was submitted by the workmen with regard to completion of their engagement, for more than 240 days with the respondent-department rather the respondent-department submitted the documents on record which indicates that the petitioners have not worked with the respondent for more than 240 days in a calendar year. Counsel submits that appreciating these facts and documents available on the record, the claim petition filed by the workmen was rejected. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that the affidavit/documents were furnished by the respective parties, and the muster roll [2025:RJ-JP:3873] (3 of 3) [CW-24620/2018] available on the record indicating that the total period of employment of the workmen was less than 240 days and the workmen have failed to established the fact that they worked with the respondent-department for more than 240 days in the last calendar year. A factual finding has been recorded in this regard through a reasoned and cognizant order, which does not require interference by this Court. 6. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands rejected. 7. All pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Garima/43