SBCWP654/1998 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.654/1998 State of Rajasthan and Another Vs. Ram Khiladi and Another Date of Order ::: 25.03.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri S.D. Khaspuria, Additional Government Counsel for petitioners None present for respondent-workman #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for petitioners. This writ petition has been filed by petitioners State of Rajasthan and its official aggrieved by Award dated 18.07.1996 passed by Labour Court, Bharatpur. Shri S.D. Khaspuria, learned Additional Government Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners, has argued that working of respondent-workman with petitioner establishment for 240 days in a calendar year immediately preceding the date of his alleged retrenchment on 01.12.1990 has to be proved as a question of fact and respondent-workman has utterly failed to prove that he actually worked for 240 days in a calendar year preceding the SBCWP654/1998 // 2 // date of his alleged retrenchment. It is contended that while respondent-workman asserted in the statement of claim that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year preceding the date of his alleged retrenchment, the petitioner, in reply to statement of claim, denied this fact and contrarily pleaded that he in first span worked for 78 days and thereafter for 46 days. It is contended that some of the muster rolls were produced by respondent- workman but the burden of proof was entirely on the workman to show that he actually worked for 240 days in a calendar year preceding the date of his retrenchment. Alternatively, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that given the nature of appointment of respondent-workman and number of days for which he actually worked, there was absolutely no justification for directing reinstatement of respondent-workman with continuity in service and full back wages. He could at best be awarded lump sum compensation. Upon hearing learned Additional Government Counsel and perusing material available on record, I find that this is not a case where respondent would not have at all produced any evidence; the respondent produced SBCWP654/1998 // 3 // copies of as many as 9 muster rolls each of which pertained to the month of June, July and August of 1989 and others were of June and July of 1990; he could not be expected to retain muster rolls of remaining months but nevertheless he has proved his continuity in service of petitioner for fairly a long span of time which proves at-least the fact that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year preceding the date of his alleged retrenchment. Contrarily assertion made by petitioner that respondent worked for 78 days in first span and 46 days in second span, was rightly not believed by Labour Court because petitioner failed to given particulars of days and month as to in which month he worked for how many days so as to arrive at the figure of 144 days (78 and 46 days). However, learned Additional Government Counsel justified in arguing that respondent-workman could not be directed to be reinstated because in the present case the alleged retrenchment was made on 01.12.1990 of which reference was made on 24.02.1992 and Award was rendered on 18.07.1996. Now in any case when decision of this writ petition is being rendered, more than two decades have gone by, there cannot be any justification for SBCWP654/1998 // 4 // upholding the direction for reinstatement of respondent-workman with full back wages and continuity in service, particularly when operation of Award has remained stayed pursuant to interim order passed by this Court on 03.04.1998 and confirmed on 20.08.1999, and ends of justice would be met if petitioner is required to pay to respondent-workman a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as lump sum compensation in lieu of full and final settlement of all his dues. It is accordingly ordered. This amount is to be paid to respondent- workman within a period of 3 months from the date a copy of this order is produced before petitioner, failing which respondent-workman shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum for the period of delay in payment thereof, if any. Writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. A copy of this order be endorsed to respondent-workman for information. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//