D.B. SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.639/2008 Arjunlal Jat Vs. Judge, Labour Court No.2, & Ors. Date of Judgment :: April 03, 2008. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. M.F. Baig for the appellant. *** Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal is directed against the order dated 19.11.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition no.5841/2005 whereby and whereunder the writ application was dismissed. On account of retrenchment of the appellant-workman, a reference was made under the provisions of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned labour court on the basis of pleadings of the parties and the evidence brought on record, held that the concerned workman appellant had not continuously worked for 240 days, and thus, the provision of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act was not attracted. From the discussions made in the impugned award and according to the document produced by the workman, it would appear that he had not worked for more than 100 days at one stretch. It is true that he worked under the work-charge establishment but with break. Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act requires that no person shall be retrenched without compliance of the provisions of law as referred to in Section 25F in case he had worked continuously for 240 days in any calender year. The findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal, in this view of the matter, were not interfered with by the learned Single Judge of this Court. -2- Even before us in this intra court appeal, no other material has been produced to show that the appellant- workman had continuously worked in preceding calender year for 240 days. This being the position, in our view, no interference would be required. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J. (NARAYAN ROY),CJ. Skant/-