1 S.B. Civil writ petition No. 770/2010 Deep Chand vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order: 19.3.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Rakesh Matoria,for the petitioner. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging award dated 30th March, 2009 because the petitioner's claim was rejected. One of the facts is that petitioner's contention is that he was removed from service on 16th July, 1994 and for the first time, he raised dispute before the Conciliation officer no 21st March, 2005. On other facts also, the findings are against the petitioner and he failed to prove that he worked for 240 days continuously in any calender year. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that similarly situated person was granted the relief in the award dated 24.8.1999 and against that award, the writ petition was preferred by the State of Rajasthan which is SBCWP No.3862/2000 and that writ petition was also dismissed by order dated 7th Nov., 2000. In view of the above facts, the award passed by the tribunal rejecting the petitioner's claim is liable to be set aside. It is not in dispute that petitioner raised the dispute after 11 years and further according to the learned counsel 2 for the petitioner, the petitioner raised the dispute when another employee's claim petition was allowed vide award dated 24.8.1999 referred above. The facts of the case of another employee i.e., Sarjeet which was decided by the labour court vide award dated 24.8.1999 have no similarity to the present case. In that case, the workman was removed on 16.7.1994 and he raised the dispute immediately and even the matter was referred to the labour court in the year 1996 within a period of two years and the said labour case was decided within a period of 3 years. Therefore, the petitioner's contention that after the decision given in another employee he approached the labour court is also delayed by the more than 5 years apart from the fact that petitioner has failed to prove that he worked for 240 days in any calender year and that finding of fact cannot be interfered. In view of the above, neither there is similarly in the case of referred above nor there is merit in this case of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed. [PRAKASH TATIA], J. cpgoyal/-