1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.811 OF 2011 (SUDAS @ SUDAM SHRIRAM GONDANE..VS..CIVIL SURGEON & ANR.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr.N.R.Saboo, Advocate for Petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 21, 2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. By this petition the petitioner impugns the judgment passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Amravati on 09.12.2010 dismissing his reference application. The petitioner claims to have been working as a Ward Boy with the respondent since 01.05.1989 on daily wages. According to the petitioner, his services were terminated without assigning any reason on 27.05.1992. Since, according to the petitioner, he had completed more than 240 days service in the year preceding to the date of his illegal termination, it was necessary for the respondent to have complied with the provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. The respondent filed the written statement and resisted the claim of the petitioner. It was pleaded by the respondent that the petitioner was not appointed on any sanctioned post by following due process of selection. It was denied that the petitioner had completed 240 days in one 2 year as alleged by him and therefore, according to the respondent, there was no question of retrenchment. On hearing the parties and on perusal of the evidence on record, the Labour Court dismissed the reference. The Labour Court rightly held that though the petitioner had stated in his evidence that he had completed 240 days of service in the year preceding the year of his termination, the said fact was specifically denied by the respondent. The respondent was issued notice and was asked to produce the attendance register from 01.05.1989 to 27.05.1992 on record, but since the muster rolls were not available at the relevant time, the respondent produced certificate at Exh.42 which was prepared on the basis of the muster roll. On perusal of the same, the Labour Court held that the petitioner had rendered only 149 days of service in the year preceding the year of his date of termination. The findings recorded by the Labour Court for rejecting the reference are just and proper and call for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that though the petitioner may not have completed 240 days of continuous service in the year preceding to the date of his termination, in the year previous to that, the petitioner rendered more than 240 days of continuous service is liable to be rejected as the certificate produced by the respondent before the trial Court, dated 15.05.1995 and annexed to the petition at Annexure-H does not show that the petitioner had rendered more than 240 days of service in the year previous to the year of his termination. During four years of service the petitioner had rendered only 686 days of service and during each year the petitioner had worked for less than 240 days. 3 In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RR..