SBCWP No.4810/05. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4810/2005. K.C. Abrahim Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of order : February 27, 2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Smt. Sangeeta Sharma for the petitioner. Shri Zakir Hussain, Additional Government Counsel. Shri Shailendra Singh for Shri S.S. Hora for respondent No.2. **** BY THE COURT :- This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the appropriate government dated 23/5/2005 whereby, request of the petitioner for referring to the industrial dispute to the concerned Industrial/Labour Court was declined. The appropriate government maintained that since petitioner has neither completed 240 days in the services of the respondents nor he has been removed from service, reference cannot be made. It was held that petitioner voluntarily abundand the service and therefore there was no industrial dispute so as to be referred to the court. SBCWP No.4810/05. 2 2) Smt. Sangeeta Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that appropriate government could not on its own adjudicate upon the disputed facts and this was required to be decided by the concerned Industrial/Labour Court. 3) Shri Zakir Hussain, Additional Government Counsel as well as Shri Shailendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 have opposed the writ petition and submitted that there was no dispute because as per the report of the conciliation officer, petitioner did not complete 240 days and not only this, petitioner in paras 2 and 3 and Ground (iii) of the writ petition has stated that he has worked only from 1/12/2003 to 31/3/2004 and obviously therefore there was no question of violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Dispues Act, 1947. It was argued that as regards the due amount of salary of three days and other actual payable benefits, petitioner can seek the remedy under Section 33(c)(2) of the Act of 1947. 4) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that the present case is distinguishable from the case of Moduram. Petitioner in para 2 of the writ petition has clearly stated that he was initially engaged on fixed salary of Rs.5000/- on 1/12/2003 and he continued in service till 31/3/2004. This fact is SBCWP No.4810/05. 3 reiterated in para 3 of the writ petition . 5) In view of this, it cannot be said that there was any violation of Section 25F. However, for unpaid wages for three days and any other dues, petitioner can seek remedy under Section 33(c)(2). The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid liberty. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil