1. DB Special Appeal (Writ) No. 595/2010 The Principal Mayo College, Ajmer Vs. Deepak Rajpuriya & Ors. & 2. DB Special Appeal (Writ) No. 594/2010 The Principal Mayo College, Ajmer & Another Vs. Nathu Singh & Another 24.11.2010. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prakash Tatia Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.P. Pathak Mr. A.K. Bhandrai, Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Rizwan Ahmed, for the appellants. These two appeals have been preferred against the common judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 9th February, 2010 by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions preferred by the workmen and instead of passing the order of reinstatement, awarded compensation of Rs. one lac to the workmen. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge exceeded its jurisdiction by re-appreciating the evidence which has already been considered by the learned Labour Court. It is also submitted that the workmen were working in a project and therefore they were not entitled to any relief. It is also submitted that in the writ petition no. 2620/97 the workmen even failed to plead and prove that the workmen worked for more than 240 days. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and also perused the facts of the case. So far as the legal position is concerned, for which the learned counsel for the appellants cited certain judgments and for which there is no quarrel that it is the duty of the workman to plead and prove the fact that he worked for more than 240 days and therefore, we need not to refer all those judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant.. However, after going through the reasons given in the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge dated 9th February, 2009 and after going through the pleadings and other materials, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was right in holding that though the respondents set up a plea that workmen's engagement was in a Project and there services discontinued when the Project came to an end but in doing so they do not deny the factum of their continuity in service for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding the date of their retrenchment and the appellants failed to prove the fact that the workmen were engaged in any project. In view of the above reasons, we do not find any merit in these appeals and both the appeals are dismissed. (S.P. Pathak), J. (Prakash Tatia), J. dsr/