Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 17224 (RAJ)

JAGDISH NARAIN v. LABOUR COURT -1 JAIPUR AND ORS

CW/7995/2002 · 2026-01-27

Inderjeet Singh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:3473] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7995/2002 जगदीश नारायण पु्ቔ ्ቦी रामचं्ቖ जाति मीणा आयु ३२ व्ቧ हाल तिनवासी गोतिंदपुरा, रोपड़ा, जयपुर। ---- तिपटीशनर Versus 1. जज, ्ቦम ्቗ायालय ्ቚथम जयपुर । 2. सतिचव, जयपुर तिवकास ्ቚाति'करण, जयपुर। 3. डी. ऍफ़.ओ., जयपुर तिवकास ्ቚाति'करण, जयपुर। ---- रे्ቢोंडेंट्स For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Govind Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. M. F. Baig, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 27/01/2026 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner (hereinafter to be referred as ‘workman’) challenging the award dated 12.12.2000 passed by the learned Labour Court wherein the learned Labour Court has held that the termination of workman by the respondent (hereinafter to be referred as ‘employer’) was justified as the workman was not entitled for any relief since the workman has not continuously worked for 240 days in one calendar year. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the finding arrived at by the learned Labour Court is perverse as the workman has continuously worked for 240 days in one calendar year. Therefore, he prayed for allowing this writ petition. 3. No one is present on behalf of the respondent. 4. I have carefully gone through the award dated 12.12.2000 passed by the learned Labour Court. [2026:RJ-JP:3473] (2 of 3) [CW-7995/2002] 5. The learned Labour Court, after appreciating the evidence produced before it by the parties and also considering the document—‘Muster Roll’ produced by the employer, has arrived at the finding that the workman has not continuously worked for 240 days in one calendar year. In my considered view, the learned Labour Court has rightly passed the award in favour of the employer as no violation of provisions of Sections 25 (G) & 25 (h) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been found by the learned Labour Court. Therefore, no case is made out for interference by this Court in the award dated 12.12.2000 passed by the learned Labour Court. 6. Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed. (INDERJEET SINGH),J Tushar/21 [2026:RJ-JP:3473] (3 of 3) [CW-7995/2002] जगदीश नारायण पु्ቔ ्ቦी रामचं्ቖ जाति मीणा आयु ३२ व्ቧ हाल तिनवासी गोतिंदपुरा, रोपड़ा, जयपुर। सतिचव, जयपुर तिवकास ्ቚाति'करण, जयपुर। डी ऍफ़ औ,