[2025:RJ-JP:38313] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4732/2005 Captin Yogi S/o Shri Badri Parsad Yogi, R/o Indok, Teh. & Distt. Alwar (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bharatpur Camp Alwar. 2. Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation, Alwar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yenu Satyam, Adv. for Mr. Jai Kishan Yogi, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Virendra Lodha, Senior Counsel with Mr. Ankit Rathore, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment 18/09/2025 1. Petitioner has assailed the award dated 19.03.2004 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur, Camp Alwar (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Labour Court') whereby reference in relation to termination of services of the petitioner has been answered against him. 2. It is stated that the petitioner was engaged as Legal Assistant by the respondents on 25.07.1984 and he worked on the aforesaid post continuously up to 14.09.1985 and thereafter, without giving any notice or wages in lieu of notice, by verbal order, petitioner's services were terminated w.e.f. 15.09.1985. He raised industrial dispute under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947'), which was [2025:RJ-JP:38313] (2 of 3) [CW-4732/2005] ultimately referred to the learned Labour Court for adjudication. The petitioner filed statement of claim which was responded by the respondents by filing reply to the statement of claim and vide award dated 19.03.2004, the statement of claim filed by the petitioner has been rejected and the reference has been answered against him with a finding that the termination of the petitioner w.e.f. 14.09.1985 was legal and valid. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that although the petitioner has successfully established before the learned Labour Court that he had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year immediately preceding the date of termination, yet in violation of Section 25F of the Act of 1947, his services were terminated, which is illegal and the award passed by the learned Labour Court ignoring the specific case of the petitioner is based upon perverse finding and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that apart from violation of Section 25F of the Act of 1947, the petitioner also raised a ground that one Balbir Singh was also engaged with the petitioner as Legal Assistant, yet he was continued and services of the petitioner were terminated ignoring the seniority. Hence, there was a clear cut violation of Section 25G of the Act of 1947. 5. Mr. Virendra Lodha, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents opposed the writ petition and defended award dated 19.03.2004 passed by the learned Labour Court and submitted that the petitioner has utterly failed to prove before the learned Labour Court that he was engaged for regular work and rather he was being paid for casual nature of work @ Rs.10 per [2025:RJ-JP:38313] (3 of 3) [CW-4732/2005] hour. It was also submitted that no legitimate evidence was produced by the petitioner before the learned Labour Court in order to show that he had completed more than 240 days of service and so far as the allegation with regard to Balbir Singh is concerned, Balbir Singh was appointed in accordance with process of selection in regular manner, therefore, the case of the petitioner cannot be compared with that of Balbir Singh. 6. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. It is a settled proposition of law that this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has limited jurisdiction and any interference in the award passed by the learned Labour Court can be made only in the cases where the petitioner succeeds in establishing any material illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned award or any manifest violation of statutory provisions. In the instant case, where factual finding has been recorded against the petitioner- workman on account of not submitting proper evidence, there is no scope for interference. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is, hereby, dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH-Jatin/89