[2026:RJ-JP:663] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1614/2003 Gangaram Son of Shri Mangilal, aged about 50 years, R/o Mohalla Khurra, Tehsil Baseri, District Dholpur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Judge, Labour Court, Bharatpur. 2. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division, Dholpur. 3. The Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department Sub- Division Baseri, District Dholpur. 4. The Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Sub- Division Bari, District Dholpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 08/01/2026 1. Feeling aggrieved by award dated 29.01.2003 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur, whereby the reference in respect of legality and validity of termination of the petitioner, has been answered by the Labour Court against the petitioner-workman, petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially engaged as Beldar on 01.06.1970. His presence was recorded in muster roll by his name from 01.06.1970 to 31.12.1981, however, the petitioner continued [2026:RJ-JP:663] (2 of 5) [CW-1614/2003] thereafter also upto 31.08.1994, yet his presence was recorded in the muster roll by different names from time to time. Without making compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and without giving any notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation, his services were terminated with effect from 01.01.1994. 3. Feeling aggrieved, he raised industrial disputes under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which was ultimately referred to the Labour Court, Bharatpur, where the petitioner filed his statement of claim, which was opposed by the respondents by filing reply to the statement of claim. Thereafter, both the parties submitted their affidavits in evidence. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner filed an application before the Labour Court for directing the respondents to produce record of the period from 01.06.1970 to 31.12.1981. Such application was although allowed by the Labour Court, yet the record was not produced by the respondents- employer. However, without drawing adverse inference, award dated 29.01.2003 has been passed with the finding that the petitioner has failed to prove that he had worked for more than 240 days immediately preceding 12 calendar months from the date of termination i.e. 31.08.1994. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that award dated 29.01.2003 passed by the Labour Court, is against the facts and circumstances of the case, material and evidence on record as well as the findings arrived at by the Labour Court are baseless and unfounded and perverse. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that when specific order was passed by the [2026:RJ-JP:663] (3 of 5) [CW-1614/2003] Labour Court directing the respondents for producing record of the period from 01.06.1970 to 31.12.1981 and the same was not perverse then adverse inference ought to have been drawn against the respondents-employers, but it was not done by the Labour Court. 5. Learned counsel further submits that in addition to above, learned Labour Court has not appreciated the fact that after 1981, the petitioner although continued, yet payment was made to him by using different names on different occasions. Thus, the petitioner could not have been asked to prove that he had worked for more than 240 days in preceding year from the date of termination. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the contrary, supported the impugned award and opposed the writ petition and submitted that award has been passed by the Labour Court on the basis of material and evidence available on record. The Labour Court has given sound finding based upon the legal provisions, where the petitioner has utterly failed to prove continuous service under the provisions of the Act of 1947 and the factual finding given by the Court below cannot be interfered with in writ petition/jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The contention of the petitioner that regardless of order passed by the Labour Court, the respondents-employer did not produce record of the period from 01.06.1970 to 31.12.1981 and despite that adverse inference was not drawn by the Labour Court, [2026:RJ-JP:663] (4 of 5) [CW-1614/2003] is of no help to the petitioner for the reason that terms of reference in the instant matter are quite clear and same were confined to the propriety and validity of termination dated 31.08.1994. For the purpose of proving violation of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, the petitioner was required to prove that he was rendering continuous service in the light of provisions of Section 25-B of the Act of 1947 and for that he was required to place sufficient evidence on record to establish that the petitioner had worked for more than 240 days in 12 calendar months just preceding the date of termination. Since, in the instant case, date of termination has been shown as 31.08.1994, therefore, non- production of record of the period from 01.06.1970 to 31.12.1981 is quite immaterial and was not relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the reference. 9. Petitioner has utterly failed to produce any evidence showing his working in last 12 calendar months immediately preceding the date of termination i.e. 31.08.1994. The contention that since after 1981, although the petitioner has actually worked till the date of termination, but payment was made to him by different names, has also not been proved by the petitioner by placing any evidence on record. He could have produced his fellow workers, if any, to prove that the petitioner was discharging his work, but no such evidence was produced by the petitioner. Hence, on the basis of evidence and material on record, just and rational finding has been given by the trial/Labour Court. This Court while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot interfere with the factual finding given by the Labour Court. [2026:RJ-JP:663] (5 of 5) [CW-1614/2003] 10. In the light of above discussion, no interference is called for in award dated 29.01.2003 and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /20