^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 376lof 1993 Petitioner Shri Rajaram Paadey, S/o Shri. RamadharPandey,Karaihapara, Post Ratanpur, District- BUaspur (C.G.). Versus Respondents 1. ChiefExecutive OfBcer, Nagar Paachayat, Rataupur, District- Bilaspur(C.G.). 2. The Presiding OfBcer, State Labour Court, Durg (C.G.). Sin^e Bench ; HonTile Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. Shri. Rakesh Mohaa Paudey, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri Manoj'ParaCtjpe, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. ORAL ORDER ( IfiAjaauaiy, 2006) The foUowing oider of fhe Court was passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. Leamed counsel for the petitioner subiuits that the petitioner was ^ppointed by fhe Respoadeat No. 1 on the post of Mohamr on daily wages in April, 1982. The petitioner worked continuoiisly till June, 1983 when the petitioner was asked aot to work for fhe Respondent No. 1. A dispute was raised aad fhe niatter was referred to the Labour Court, Durg m Case No. 24/I.D.Act/91 (Reference). The Laboiir Court aflter having exaDxmed the statement of the petitioner and various documents i.e, Annexure D/a, D/2, D/3 and D/4 produced by fhe Respondent No. 1, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had faited to establish that the petitioner had worked for 240 days ia fhe year preceding to fhe date of tenuination aad disinissed the claun by award dated 10.5.1993. 2^. It is weU established pruiciple of law that it is for the claimant to prove by leading evidence that he had worked up to 240 days in a yess precediag to the date of termination. In the present case fhe t- 5-r- petitioner-eiuployee has not exanuiied aay witness or co-worker and has not led any other evidence to establish (hat in fact he had worked for 240 days. On the contraiy the respoadent No.l has proved by produciag suf&cient evidence that fhe petitioner was employed initiaUy to look after fhe work of catfle census on daily wages fhereafter he was allowed to continue tffl October, 1982. I have heard leamed couiiscl for the parties and perused fhe records appended to fhe petition as weU as retiim. I am of the view fhat there is no evidence to prove that tfae petitioner had worked for 240 days in a year preceduig.to the date of termuuation. The petitioner had uiade an appUcation seeking a direction agauist fhe Respondent No.l to produce the inuster-roll. The tuuster-roU could not be produced. Accordiag to the respondents they have produced atl the relevant material docuiuents except iniister-roU, which was not relevant in fhe case of the petitioner. It is understandable if the petitioner-einployee produced ofher eviden.ee like examiaing his co-workers and then askmg for muster-roU in support of the depositions made by the witaesses. In fhe present case nothiag has been done and the petitioner has failed miserably to prove that fhe petitiouer had worked for 240 days in a year preceduig to the date of termiaation. There is no perversily in fhe findiugs recorded by the Labour Court. The fiudiag fa just and proper and supported by fhe evidence. la view of fhe foregoiag it does not warraat aay iuterfereace with fhe award dated 10.5.1993 passed by fhe Labour Coiirt in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is accordingly disinissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Ag5»ihotrt Judge Thakur