1 S.B. Civil writ petition No. 57/2007 Rakesh vs Municipal Council, Pali & Ors. Date of Order dated 11.12.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.BD Mittal, for the petitioner. Mr.Yawant Mehta, for the respondents. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner completed more than 240 days in calender year and that fact has been proved by the petitioner, but the labour court influenced by the fact that direction was given by this court in SBCWP No.1713/1992- Prabhu Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors decided on 21.10.1992 followed the procedure of lottery of giving appointment to some of the persons and petitioner was also one of the persons who took chance of success in the lottery after failing sought relief on the basis of the facts which are not proved. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Ramesh Kumar reported in 2008 (118) FLR 694 wherein it has been held that absence of reasons has rendered the High Court order not sustainable. To meet with the argument learned counsel for the 2 respondent submitted that to challenge the identical awards passed in other labour cases the other persons have filed writ petitions before this Court being SBCWP No.4625/2003 and connected writ petitions and the same were dismissed by this Court vide order dated 22.12.2006 and because of dismissal of the aforesaid writ petitions, one of the persons namely Pradeep Kumar filed DBSAW No.366/2007 and the same was also dismissed by the Division Bench. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case. The labour court has considered the facts of the case of the petitioner in detail and also took note of the fact that some directions were issued by this Court in earlier round of litigation to the respondent-Municipal Board and in pursuance of the directions a process was evolved and in that process, the petitioner also applied and he failed to get any success. The petition of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed only on this ground that petitioner tried to take benefit of the procedure and when failed, has challenged the process. Be it as it may be, the petitioner is challenging the award dated 30.12.2004 by preferring the writ petition on 3.1.2007 i.e., after more than two and half years without explaining the delay. In addition to above, in the judgment delivered in the case of Pradeep Kumar (supra) there appears to be reasons given dealing with the issue raised by the petitioner. 3 Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merit also. [PRAKASH TATIA], J. cpgoyal/-