1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICTURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Sanwar Mal. Versus Labour Court & ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1931/2005 ... Date of Order: February 08, 2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. Mahaveer Bishno for Mr. Rakesh Arora, for the petitioner. Mr. J.K. Chanda, for the respondent No.2. BY THE COURT: By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 27-2-2003 (Annx.1) and the order dated 17.1.2003 (Annx.3). The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the Appropriate Government, i.e. the Government of Rajasthan, made a reference to the Industrial Disputes Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bikaner (for short, “the Labour Court” hereinafter) vide Notification dated 31-7-2000 for adjudication as to whether the termination of services of the petitioner-workman from December 1990 is just and proper. The learned Labour Court, on receipt of the reference, registered 2 the case and issued notice to the parties. The statement of claim was filed by the petitioner-workman and a reply to the claim was filed by the respondent-employer denying the case set up by the petitioner-workman in the statement of claim. The respondent-employer came with the case that after September, 1982, the petitioner-workman did not work even for a day and as such the relation of employee and employee has been denied. It was stated that the petitioner-workman, for the first time, engaged on contract basis, which has not been disclosed by the petitioner-workman in the claim petition; however, at any rate, after September 1982, the petitioner-workman has not worked even for a day. Earlier the petitioner-workman used to be engaged on contract basis for one to two hours wages from 12- 4-1982 to 30-9-1982. The petitioner-workman was afforded opportunity to lead evidence but despite several opportunities, he failed to produce any evidence in support of his claim. Petitioner-workman was given last opportunity to produce his evidence and on 17-1-2003 which he failed to produce and his evidence was closed. Thus, there was no evidence produced by either of the parties except the pleadings of the parties by way of filing the statement of claim and reply thereto. The burden to prove that the petitioner-workman worked for 240 days in a calendar year, was on the petitioner- workman. Since in the instant case, the petitioner-workman 3 failed to produce any evidence to prove the facts mentioned in the statement of claim, the respondent Labour Court held that it has not been established that the services of the petitioner- workman were terminated with effect from September 1990 in violation of any of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and consequently answered the reference adjudicating it against the petitioner-workman. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It was for the petitioner-workman to establish that he had worked for 240 days in a calendar year and his services have been terminated in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, but the petitioner-workman utterly failed to establish the same as he did not lead any evidence in this respect. In the circumstances, therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court cannot be said to be erroneous. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and it is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (H.R. PANWAR), J. mcs