SBCWP NO.6619/10. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6619/2010. Gokul Chand Versus The Labour Court No.1, Jaipur & Anr. Date of Order:- May 11, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Naveen Dhuwan for the petitioner. ****** BY THE COURT:- This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Gokul Chand against the award of Labour Court No.1, Jaipur dated 5/3/2010. Reference was made to the said court by the appropriate government on the industrial dipsute whether removal of the petitioner by the respondents vide order dated 1/7/2006 was valid and legal and if not, to what relief he was entitled to? Labour Court has not correctly analysed the evidence and erreed in law in holding that petitioner did not complete 240 days in a calendar year preceding to his removal from service. Learned counsel submitted that the labour court has ommitted to consider that not only petitioner worked with the respondents from 27/1/2006 to 30/6/2006 but also he worked in another site of the respondents for the period from SBCWP NO.6619/10. 2 1/10/2005 to 26/1/2006. It is contended that evidence was also produced by the respondents by way of certificate obtained from the Sarpanch of the concerned village that he worked for the period from 27/1/2006 to 30/6/2006. On perusal of the award as also the statement of claim, I find that there is no assertion made by the petitioner that he ever worked in another site of the respondents from 1/10/2005 to 26/1/2006. No evidence whatsoever was led on this aspect of the matter. No evidence was produced about working of the petitioner from 27/1/2006 to 30/6/2006. What is proved is that petitioner worked with the respondents sometime in February 2006 and apart from that, no other evidence was produced. Even if certificate on which reliance was placed by the petitioner is accepted, that is also regarding period of five months and does not make 240 days so as to attract the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In my view, therefore, finding of the learned labour court does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or perversity. No interference in the impugned order of the labour court is called for by this Court. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil/-