[2025:RJ-JP:31905] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6997/2005 Prathviraj Verma S/o Shri Hari Kishan, aged about 39 years, Resident of House No. 401, Raigaron Ka Mohalla, Jhotwara, Jaipur Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The General Manager State Bank of India, Local Head Office the General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur, 302005. 2. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Branch Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.L. Songara For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anita Agarwal with Mr. Vibhanshu Sharma & Mr. Laxmikant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 14/08/2025 1. The petitioner has challenged order dated 31.12.2004 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the learned Court below’) whereby, reference has been answered against the petitioner-workman. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was engaged as Class-IV employee on 15.03.1999 at State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. However, his services were terminated without giving any opportunity of [2025:RJ-JP:31905] (2 of 4) [CW-6997/2005] hearing and in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the termination, he raised industrial disputes under the provisions of Act of 1947, which was ultimately referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Jaipur (CGIT), Jaipur for adjudication. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without properly examining the statement for claim, material and evidence on record, learned Court below has passed award dated 31.12.2004. 4. Learned counsel submits that the evidence led by the petitioner-workman was not appreciated in proper manner while computing the services for 240 days and as per petitioner, he had worked for 274 days and therefore, was entitled to protection provided under the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. Learned counsel further submits that learned CGIT has erroneously believed upon the evidence led by the management and has given a perverse finding that the petitioner has worked only for 165 days. It has also been submitted that an application was also moved by the petitioner calling for record of the respondents but despite that the record was not produced, hence, adverse inference ought to have been drawn against the management. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Labour Court, Bharatpur & Ors. reported in 2005(8) RDD 2967 (Raj.) and Munshi Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2001(3) WLC (Raj.) 250. [2025:RJ-JP:31905] (3 of 4) [CW-6997/2005] 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents defends the impugned award and submits that in order to claim protection under Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, the workman was required to prove continuous service i.e. for 240 or more days in a calendar year immediately preceding the date of termination. 7. In the instant case, no document whatsoever was placed on record by the petitioner-workman before the learned Court below whereas, after placing the documents on record, the management has succeeded in establishing that the petitioner- workman had worked only for 165 days. Under these circumstances, petitioner is not entitled for any relief whatsoever. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. 9. It is settled proposition of law that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot sit as an appellate Court against award passed by the Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal. Any interference can be made only in such cases, where the petitioner succeeds in pointing out manifest illegality, perversity or lack of jurisdiction. 10. In the instant case, where the award has been passed by the learned Court below and a factual finding has been given that the petitioner has worked only for 165 days. No interference can be made in such factual finding in the instant writ petition, hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived and liable to be rejected. 11. The judgments raised upon by the petitioner in the case of Munshi Khan (Supra) is not at all applicable where, this Court [2025:RJ-JP:31905] (4 of 4) [CW-6997/2005] has held that for the purpose of computing the continuous service, period of holidays and weekly holidays have to be included. In the instant case, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that although the petitioner worked up to 13.12.1999, but the respondents have calculated 165 days working treating his services only up to November, 1999. Even if, version of the petitioner is taken at its face value then also after adding 30 days more in 165 days, by no stretch of imagination, it can be held that the petitioner had worked for more than 240 days. 12. The judgment of State of Rajasthan (Supra) relied upon by the petitioner is also not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case, where the petitioner has utterly failed to produce any evidence whatsoever to prove working of 240 or more days. 13. In the light of above discussion, no interference is called for in the impugned award and hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /15