1 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.640/2007 Pappu Das Vs. The Judge, Labour Court-cum- Industrial Tribunal, Jodhpur. Date : 13.7.2007 PRESENT HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. RAJESH BALIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. M. Mridul, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. R.N. Upadhyay for the appellant. ----- Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the opinion that no interference is called for in appeal against the judgment of learned Single Judge on a reference of industrial dispute being made to the Labour Court, Jodhpur in relation to alleged termination of services of the appellant workman. On 18.2.1993, an award was made by the Labour Court against the workman. The Labour Court found that the workman was not in a continuous employment for one year or more on the alleged date of termination of his services so as to invite the application of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was also found by the 2 Labour Court that in fact the services were not terminated on 18.2.1993 but the workman discharged his duties in the month of March and April 1983 also. No dispute about termination of services in April, 1993 was referred. The employer has otherwise pleaded that workman has voluntarily stopped coming on duty and his services were not terminated. As such the workman was daily rated workman and in view thereof he was not held entitled to any relief. The award dated 29.1.2005 was challenged by way of writ petition which has been dismissed by the judgment under appeal. The learned Single Judge by referring to the material which was placed before the Labour Court and by giving the benefit of drawing adverse inference against the employer for the period of which the muster rolls were not produced had found that still the petitioner workman does not complete the actual 3 working period of 240 days within 12 months immediate preceding alleged date of termination. He had agreed with the finding of the learned Judge, Labour Court that the services were not terminated on 18.2.1993 but he had been intermittently employed thereafter also and he ultimately stopped voluntarily coming on duty since April 1993. All these are the findings of fact and did not call for interference through the writ of certiorari as no case of perversity of finding is made out. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. [MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA],J. [RAJESH BALIA], Actg.C.J. babulal/