[2025:RJ-JP:47075] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20348/2018 1. Shri Om Prakash S/o Tuliya, Since Deceased, Through His Legal Representatives 2. Smt. Anguri Devi Wife Of Late Shri Om Prakash, R/o Ronhai, Tehsil Sepau, District Dholpur (Rajasthan) 3. Raju S/o Late Shri Om Prakash, R/o Ronhai, Tehsil Sepau, District Dholpur (Rajasthan) 4. Ajay Son Of Late Shri Om Prakash Minor Through His Mother Smt. Anguri Devi, Aged About 14 Years, R/o Ronhai, Tehsil Sepau, District Dholpur (Rajasthan) ----Petitioners Versus The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, District Dholpur (Rajasthan) ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.K. Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saumil Sharma, for Mr. G.K. Sharma, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 19/11/2025 1. This civil writ petition has been filed against the award dated 23.04.2018 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bharatpur whereby the statement of claim presented by the petitioner was rejected. 2. The concise facts of the case are that the workman Om Prakash was employed as Beldar with the respondents with effect from 01.07.1989 at different places of the district Dholpur and served them till 31.12.1993. However, his services were retrenched, post which, he raised an industrial dispute before the [2025:RJ-JP:47075] (2 of 5) [CW-20348/2018] appropriate government. The appropriate government referred the dispute to the learned Labour Court, Bharatpur vide its notification dated 27.12.2000 after the reconciliation proceedings failed. 3. The learned Labour Court then issued notices to the parties, in pursuance of which, the petitioner submitted his statement of claim and the non-petitioners put their appearance and filed their reply to the statement of claim. The petitioner also filed an application dated 17.11.2005 seeking that the non-petitioners be directed to produce the relevant service record and the same was allowed by the learned Labour Court vide its order dated 02.05.2006. The learned counsel for petitioners allege that since the non-petitioners failed to produce the said record, the burden of proof was adequately discharged by the petitioners by filing such application and was then shifted upon the non-petitioners. 4. The present dispute was jointly raised by Shiv Charan and Om Prakash and a statement of claim was also filed jointly. However, during the course of proceedings, Shiv Charan died on 01.08.2012, following which the learned Labour Court vide its order dated 18.09.2014 dropped the proceedings so far as it relates to workman Shiv Charan and passed an award dated 20.01.2015 against both the workmen. The workman Om Prakash challenged the impugned award dated 20.01.2015 before this Court which set aside the same via its order dated 29.04.2016 and remanded the case back to the learned Labour Court. 5. The workman Om Prakash died on 16.01.2017, post which, his legal representatives were substituted in the cause title by the learned Labour Court vide its order dated 23.03.2018. Further, the statement of claim of the petitioners was rejected via order dated [2025:RJ-JP:47075] (3 of 5) [CW-20348/2018] 23.04.2018 for the reason that the workman failed to prove that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year. 6. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material made available on record. 7. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and the facts on record, it falls upon the Court to assess whether the impugned award passed by the learned Labour Court calls for any interference when the burden of proof has not been adequately discharged by the petitioner. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Ali v. State of H.P. and Others, Civil Appeal No. 3803 of 2018 observed as under:- “9. It is a well known fact that the Industrial Disputes Act is a welfare legislation. The intention behind the enactment of this Act was to protect the employees from arbitrary retrenchments...Section 25B of the Act provides that when a person can be said to have worked for one year and the very reading of the said provisions makes it clear that if a person has worked for a period of 240 days in the last preceding year, he is deemed to have worked for a year. The theory of 240 days for continuous service is that a workman is deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year, if he, during the period of twelve calendar months preceding the date of retrenchment has actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days.” 9. This Court in the case of Giriraj v. Regional Forest Officer & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1243/2016 observed as under:- “6. It is settled proposition of law that onus to prove his case lies upon the workman. ... 8. In the case at hand, petitioner has not produced any supportive evidence or record to prove his working for 240 days in a year, which too has been countered by the respondents, hence, the Labour Court has not committed any illegality and perversity in recording [2025:RJ-JP:47075] (4 of 5) [CW-20348/2018] findings that factum of rendering work for 240 days in a calendar year is not established, rather petitioner worked out for 131 days.” 10. In the present case, the learned Labour Court found that in the statement of claim presented by the petitioners, Om Prakash stated that he was appointed as Beldar on 01.07.1989 and was terminated from services on 31.12.1993, however, in his oral testimony, he denied knowing Shiv Charan. Thus, it was impossible to have appointed and terminated them simultaneously. No evidence was presented to show that he worked continuously for 240 days in the last calendar year. No clarity with respect to the last working place, number of working hours, or the date of working was provided by the petitioner. Moreover, since no record of the first appointment letter of the petitioner was presented, the benefit of ‘last come, first go’ principle could not be granted to him as his seniority was not proved. The learned Labour Court, among other cases, relied upon the case of R.M. Yellati Vs. Asstt. Executive Engineer [(2006) 1 SCC 106], in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- “...the burden of proof is on the claimant to show that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. This burden is required to be discharged by the workman by adducing cogent evidence, both oral and documentary and mere affidavit or self serving statements of the claimant workman will not suffice to discharge such burden on the workman. It was also observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the workman claimant can call upon the employer to produce before the Court, the nominal muster roll for the given period, letter of appointment or termination, if any, the wage register, the attendance register etc. When the workman could not discharge his onus, mere non-production of muster roll per see without any plea of suppression by the [2025:RJ-JP:47075] (5 of 5) [CW-20348/2018] claimant workman will not be a ground for the Tribunal to draw an adverse inference against the management. The applicability of such principle of drawing an adverse inference will depend upon the facts of each case.” 11. Having regard to the cases relied upon by the learned Labour Court, observations of the Hon'ble Courts as quoted above, discussions made and the factual matrix of the case and prayer made in this civil writ petition, the Court is not inclined to interfere in the decision passed by the learned Labour Court. The petitioner in the case at hand failed to produce any cogent evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in a given year, thus, no presumption can be raised in favour of the workman. Therefore, the statement of claim was rightly rejected by the learned Labour Court. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this civil writ petition deserves to be dismissed as the submissions of the petitioners lack merit. 13. Accordingly, the award dated 23.04.2018 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bharatpur stands affirmed and calls for no intervention. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Ashish Kumar/24