1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.138/2000. : : Khiladi Vs. Judge, Labour Court & Ors. : : Date of Order 10.7.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.Ajay Gupta for the petitioner. Ms.Parinitoo Jain, Dy.Govt.Counsel, for the State. This writ petition seeks to challenge the award of Labour Court, Bharatpur dated 30.9.1999. A referenced was made to the Labour Court by the appropriate Government on the question whether retrenchment of the petitioner by them from their service on 22.2.1989 was legal and justified and if not what relief the petitioner-workman was entitled to. The learned Labour Court on analysis of the evidence produced before it held that the petitioner worked for a period of only 107 days during the calender year immediately preceding the date of retrenchment i.e. 22.2.1989. The petitioner has challenged the award on the premise that learned Labour Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence of the two witnesses produced by the Management namely; Ramesh 2 Chand Meena and Ramesh Chand Sharma. According to the petitioner he was initially engaged on 21.2.1989 and worked till 8.11.1993 when he was removed from service. His work was thus more than 240 days. Although Ramesh Chand Sharma in his statement stated that the petitioner worked in January, 1989 for 20 days and in February, 1988 for 18 days but the respondent No.2 not produced muster-rolls for whole of the period but according to the reply as well as statements of witnesses Ramesh Chand Meena and Ramesh Chand Sharma the facts are contradictory to each other. The petitioner has worked for more than 240 days. The learned Labour Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence because it only appreciated the muster-rolls for the period from February, 1988 to February, 1989. Apart from it, muster-rolls from 1983 to January, 1988 were not produced. Adverse should be drawn against the management for withholding such muster-rolls. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that learned labour Court has appreciated the evidence properly. The working of the petitioner during the calender years immediately preceding the date of retrenchment was proved only of 107 days. It has been 3 contended that there was no violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. No evidence, even otherwise, was produced by the petitioner to prove this. The writ petition is, therefore, liable to the dismissed. What was required to be proved before the Labour Court for violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act was whether the petitioner worked for 240 days in a calender year immediately preceding the date of retrenchment. The Labour Court on consideration of the evidence found that during the period for February, 1988 to February, 1989 the petitioner has not worked for 240 days. It was proved that the petitioner was worked 7 days in the month of May, 1988, 23 days in the month of October, 1988 and 25 days in the month of November, 1988 and in other months he did not work. The Labour Court drew adverse inference against the respondents for non-production of muster-rolls of February, 1988 to February, 1989 and, therefore, even after adding 25 days, it was found that total days of the petitioner's working is hardly 107 days. This being a finding of fact, the argument that the statements of two witnesses produced by the Management has not been correctly appreciated is not substantiated. 4 I, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.27.