B-Narayan Gate, Bharatpur. vs District Project Coordinator, District Elementary Education Pro-

: Mr. J. K. Moolchandani with Mr. Hariom Yadav For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 24/09/2025 Order

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the validity of the award dated 27.11.2020 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur, in LCR. 2415/2014 (24/2010), titled 'Kishore Lal Vs. District Project Coordinator', whereby the statement of claim filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the pe- titioner filed a statement of claim before the learned Labour Court, stating that he was initially engaged on 03.07.2005 on the vacant post of Class-IV Employee in the respondent department, and continuously rendered services up to 31.07.2008. However, on

31.07.2008, the petitioner was retrenched from service abruptly; [2025:RJ-JP:39413] (2 of 4) [CW-355/2021] (i) without any valid or justified reason; (ii) without issuance of notice or payment of one month’s notice pay; (iii) and without publication of a seniority list. It was further alleged that subse- quent to the termination of his services, the respondent engaged several other persons without affording any opportunity to the pe- titioner. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for a declaration that the termination order was illegal and improper, and sought reinstate- ment in service with full back wages, salary, and all consequential benefits.

3. Thereafter, respondent filed reply to the claim petition, deny- ing the averments made in the statement of claim and prayed for its dismissal.

4. The petitioner submitted an affidavit in support of his claim, entered the witness box to record his statement, and produced documentary evidence marked as Ex.-AW.1 to Ex.-AW.8.

5. In rebuttal, the respondent examined Shri Rikhav Chand Mittal as a witness and produced documentary evidence marked as Ex.-M.1 to Ex.-M.3.

6. After hearing the arguments of both the parties, the learned Labour Court, vide award dated 27.11.2020, dismissed the claim petition on the ground that he had failed to prove completion of 240 days of service in a calendar year.

7. Being aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed by petitioner.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court failed to appreciate the facts of the case in the correct per- spective and, therefore, the impugned order of retrenchment [2025:RJ-JP:39413] (3 of 4) [CW-355/2021] dated 31.07.2008 as well as the impugned order dated

27.11.2020 is bad in law, and accordingly prays for quashing and setting aside of the same.

9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, considered the sub- missions made at the Bar, and perused the material available on record.

10. From a perusal of the award dated 27.11.2020, it is evident that the statement of claim was rejected on the ground that the petitioner failed to substantiate the averments made therein and also failed to establish that he had worked for 240 days in a calen- dar year preceding the date of termination of writ petition, as mandated under Sections 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

11. Further the learned Tribunal has rightly relied on the judg- ment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Range Forest Officer & Ors. v. S. T. Hadimani1, wherein it was held as under: "2. In the instant case, dispute was referred to the Labour Court that the respondent had worked for 240 days and his ser- vice had been terminated without paying him any retrenchment compensation. The appellant herein did not accept this and contended that the respondent had not worked for 240 days. The Tribunal vide its award dated 10th August, 1998, came to the conclusion that the service had been terminated without giving retrenchment compensation. In arriving at the conclu- sion that the respondent had worked for 240 days, the Tribunal stated that the burden was on the Management to show that there was justification in termination of the service and that the affidavit of the workman was sufficient to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a year.

3. ......In our opinion the Tribunal was not right in placing the onus on the Management without first determining on the basis 1 Civil Appeal No.1283 of 2002 [2025:RJ-JP:39413] (4 of 4) [CW-355/2021] of cogent evidence that the respondent had worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding his termination. It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked but this claim was denied by the appellant. It was then for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination. Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had, in fact, worked for 240 days in a year. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement for this period was produced by the workman. On this ground alone, the award is liable to be set aside. ........."

12. Thus, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Range Forest Officer & Ors. v. S. T. Hadimani (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that, since the petitioner has failed to substantiate that he worked for a period of 240 days preceding his termination, he is not entitled to seek any relief under Sections 25G or 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

13. In view of the facts stated above, it cannot be said that the impugned award passed by the learned Labour Court dismissing the statement of claim is arbitrary, perverse, or suffers from any illegality or infirmity.

13. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

14. The stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. Seema/67 (MANEESH SHARMA),J