1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1827 of 2010 ( Kisan Ramaji Tidke .vs. Executive Engineer, PWD ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge' s orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. S.S.Patil, Adv. for petitioner. Mr.Sonare, AGP for respondent. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : AUGUST 09, 2010. The petitioner was in the employment from 1.12.1985 till 1.2.1987. He challenged his termination almost after seven years and reference was made in the year 1996 to Labour Court, Amravati. The Labour Court found that he could not establish completion of continuous service of 240 days. It also found that the retention of Juniors in service was not pleaded and has not been established. Before this Court, an attempt has been made to point out that juniors were named in the application filed before the Conciliation Officer u/s. 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act and their names are also disclosed in the evidence. The list filed as Annexure along with Writ Petition is also being relied upon. The Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported at [2010 (1) Bombay Labour Cases 392 (Supreme Court)](Director, Fisheries Terminal Division .vs. Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda) is also being relied upon in support. The learned Assistant Government Pleader states that the petitioner was given due opportunity and that he could not establish his entitlement. He further states that the delay of seven years has not been explained satisfactorily. Retention of juniors is being placed into service to show that the petitioner could have completed 240 days of continuous service. The question is 2 essentially one of the facts and hence, necessary pleading should have been raised before the Labour Court. In absence of such pleading, the finding that the petitioner did not complete 240 days of continuous service cannot be interfered with. Reference is also not sought promptly and there is delay of about 7 years. Considering the short period of service put in by the petitioner and the state of affairs as above, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The Writ Petition is, therefore, rejected with no order as to costs. JUDGE jais