1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2978/2004 (Saadiq Ali Versus The Assistant Engineer, P.H.E.D. & Another) DATE OF ORDER :: 24th APRIL, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Abhishek Pareek for the petitioner Mr. Satish Purohit, Government Counsel for the respondents BY THE COURT: Admit. 2. At the request of learned counsel for the parties, the final arguments in the writ petition were heard and the same is being disposed of. 3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned award dated 12th December, 2003 passed by the Labour court, Kota, whereby the reference dated 6th September, 1999 made by the State Government to the Labour Court, Kota was answered against the workman. 4. The submission of leanred counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner worked for more than 240 days and without any notice or in 2 contravention of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, his services were retrenched. The Labour Court without considering the facts and circumstances of the case, wrongly decided the reference. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned award passed by the Labour Court and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned award passed by the Labour Court, Kota in the light of their submissions. 7. The Labour Court has discussed the evidence available on record and recorded a finding that workman-petitioner worked only for 127 days and did not complete 240 days, as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner and consequently, rejected the claim application. This being a question of fact, the finding recorded by the Labour Court in this regard is not open to challenge in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Apart-from above, the Labour Court has also rejected the statement of claim of the workman on the ground that he approached the conciliation officer after a 3 delay of eight years and reference was made after a period of ten years. The Labour Court, Kota has also referred a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard in the case of Central Bank of India Versus S. Satyam and Others {1996 (II) LLJ (S.C.) 820}. 8. In view of above discussions, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN), J. DK