1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4629/2009 State of Raj & Anr. vs The Judge Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court & Anr. DATE OF ORDER: 13.5.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Ms. Aruna Negi, for the petitioner. Mr. Ravindra Singh, for the respondent-caveator. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The labour court vide order dated 25.2.2008 after observing that similarly situated persons who were appointed on the same post of Nakedar challenged termination of their services before the labour court and one of which was the Labour case no.120/2000 wherein it was held that services of the said employees was wrongly terminated. The orders of the labour court passed in labour case no.120/2000 and in other similar matters were challenged by preferring writ petitions being SBCWPs Nos.2512/2003, 2512/2003 and 2418/2003, which were dismissed by this Court on 5th Sept., 2003. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that DB Special 2 Appeal against the judgment of Single Bench has also already been dismissed. In the present case, the labour court held that the applicant-respondent gave complete details about the payment of salary to him, he gave the voucher number, cash book page number etc. wherein every entry has been made by the employer with respect to the services of the applicant-respondent and the employer could not rebut these facts, therefore, the applicant proved that he worked for more than 240 days in a calender year of the preceding year to the termination of his services. Since there is a clear finding of fact that the applicant- respondent worked for more than 240 days and the petitioner has not complied with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, I do not find that the tribunal has committed any illegality. So far as contention of learned counsel for the petitioner so as to assail the judgment on the ground that in view of the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court that no-one can claim regularization as a matter of right is concerned, that judgment has no application to the facts of the case as here the order of termination of the applicant – respondent is 3 under challenge on the ground of violation of Section 25F of the Act of 1947. Hence, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed having no merit. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-