$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010687332018 + W.P.(C) 10442/2018 SH. GYAN SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Megna De, Advocate Versus M/S PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT (PWD) .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 28.09.2026 1. By way of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to assail the Award dated 04.01.2017 passed by the learned Labour Court-XVII, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in ID No. 2061/2016 (Old ID No. 254/2010), whereby the claim application filed by the present petitioner came to be dismissed. 2. The facts in nutshell are that vide order dated 30.11.2010, the Appropriate Government has forwarded the following reference to the Labour Court for adjudication:- “Whether the workman Shri Gyan Singh has completed 240 days in a year and if so whether his services have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so what relief is he entitled to and what directions are necessary in this respect?’ 3. In the claim application, it was claimed by the petitioner that he was engaged by the management through the Employment Exchange on the post of Mali as a daily wager on 01.08.1984 on muster roll basis. He claimed that he had worked with the management till 31.08.1986. On account of an accident suffered at his house, he sustained grievous injuries to his legs and could not attend duties. It was claimed that an intimation in this regard was sent to the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer through one of his colleagues on 10.08.1986 and that, after recovering from his injuries, he approached the management on 10.12.1986 with a medical certificate seeking to join duties, but the management This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/10/2026 at 11:22:53 refused to take him back. Thereafter, he claimed to have approached the management on several occasions, but was not allowed to rejoin. 4. A written statement was filed on behalf of the management stating that the claim had been filed after a delay of more than 20 years. The management further denied that the petitioner had continuously worked from 01.08.1984 till 31.08.1986. It was stated that the petitioner had worked for only 40 days from 01.08.1984 to 20.11.1984. Thereafter, he did not report for duty for about one year and one month. He was re- engaged from 20.12.1985 till 31.08.1986, during which period he worked for 139 days. It was thus stated that the workman had not completed 240 days of service. 5. In support of his claim, the workman relied upon an intimation dated 10.08.1986 (Ex.WW1/1), addressed to the SDO, Horticulture, stating that he had fallen from the roof of his house on 08.08.1986 and, on account thereof, was unable to attend duty. He also relied upon a medical document dated 10.12.1986 (Ex.WW1/2), whereby he was advised bed rest from 09.08.1986 to 10.12.1986 and was declared fit to join duty from 11.12.1986 onwards. The petitioner further relied upon representations dated 18.07.1989 and 14.09.1989, inter alia, seeking reinstatement. He also relied upon communications exchanged with the management in the years 2006 and 2007, including Ex.WW1/8 to Ex.WW1/11 and Ex.WW1/14, as well as the details of his working days, Ex.WW1/20 and Ex.WW1/21. 6. The learned Labour Court, upon examining the claim on merits, came to the conclusion that the workman had not established that he had worked for 240 days in the relevant period. In this regard, the learned Labour Court noted that as per Ex.WW1/20, the petitioner had worked for 40 days from 06.08.1984 to 20.11.1984. Thereafter, he remained away from work from 20.11.1984 to 20.12.1985 and subsequently worked for 139 days from 20.12.1985 to 31.08.1986. Even after adding 23 Sundays to the latter period, the total came to 162 days, which was less than 240 days. 7. The petitioner has placed reliance on the communication dated 10.08.1986, stated to be an intimation sent to the SDO, Horticulture through one of his colleagues. The petitioner did not produce any proof of posting of the said intimation, nor was the colleague through whom it was allegedly sent examined. The management disputed the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/10/2026 at 11:22:53 receipt of the said communication. The learned Labour Court further considered the medical document relied upon by the petitioner and held that the petitioner had failed to establish the period for which his absence could be treated as covered under Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 8. The learned Labour Court has further gone on to examine the documents in original and came to the conclusion that the intimations said to be sent in the year 1986 are not the genuine copies, but prepared subsequently. 9. Be that as it may, this Court is of the considered opinion that the finding returned that the workman had not established that he had completed 240 days of service in the relevant period, cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse. 10. This Court, therefore, finds no ground to interfere with the impugned Award. 11. The present petition is accordingly dismissed. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J SEPTEMBER 28, 2026/rd This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/10/2026 at 11:22:53