[2026:RJ-JP:4151] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1615/2003 Govinda S/o Shri Phooli, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Chhapar Mohalla Kumher, District Bharatpur (Since Deceased) Through Legal Heirs 1/1. Gordhani W/o Late Govinda, R/o Chhapar Mohalla, Kumher District Bharatpur 1/2. Omprakash S/o Late Govinda, R/o Chhapar Mohalla, Kumher District Bharatpur 1/3. Seeta D/o Late Govinda, R/o Chhapar Mohalla, Kumher District Bharatpur ----Petitioners Versus 1. The Judge, Labour Court, Bharatpur 2. The Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department Building And Road, Sub Division Iv District Sub Division, Bharatpur Presently Pwd Sub Division Ii Bharatpur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mrs. Sudesh Kasana For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 29/01/2026 1. Feeling aggrieved by award dated 21.01.2003 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. [2026:RJ-JP:4151] (2 of 5) [CW-1615/2003] 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially engaged as Beldar on 01.01.1985, and worked continuously upto 31.12.1989. 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 01.01.1990. 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. Such application was allowed by the Labour Court, yet incomplete record was produced by the respondents-employer. Still, without drawing adverse inference, award dated 21.01.2003 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. 01.01.1990. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that award dated 01.01.1990 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:4151] (3 of 5) [CW-1615/2003] Labour Court directing the respondents for producing record and the same was not completely produced 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 without preparing the seniority list and without following principle of 'first-come, last go' while retaining juniors of the services of the petitioner were terminated in violation of Section 25-G of the Act of 1947. 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 complete record and despite that adverse inference was not drawn by the Labour Court, 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 [2026:RJ-JP:4151] (4 of 5) [CW-1615/2003] termination dated 01.01.1990. 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 01.01.1990, therefore, non-production of record of the period earlier to preceding one year from termination is quite immaterial and was not relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the reference. Muster Roll of the period from 01.01.1989 to 31.12.1989 was produced before the Labour Court, which did not prove working of 240 days by the petitioner during that period. 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. 01.01.1990. Petitioner has utterly failed to lead any evidence in support of allegations in respect of violation of Section 25-G of the Act of 1947. Neither in the pleadings, nor in affidavit the petitioner submitted any details of any person junior to him, who was allegedly retained by the respondents while terminating services of 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:4151] (5 of 5) [CW-1615/2003] 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 /4