DBSAW No.299/2008. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. J U D G M E N T State of Rajasthan Vs. Bhagwan Sahay Meena & Anr. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.299/2008. In S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.920/2001. Date of Judgment:- April 10, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Ankur Rastogi, Government Counsel. ***** BY THE COURT:- Heard learned counsel for appellant. By the order impugned, learned Single Judge of this Court has affirmed the award passed by the Labour Court, Jaipur. On reference being made by the appropriate government in terms of Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred in short as the “Act”), the matter was taken up by the labour court. On consideration of the plea of the workman that he continuously worked for 240 DBSAW No.299/2008. 2 days, it was held that provisions of Section 25F of the Act were not complied with. The Labour Court thus passed the award directing the employer-State of Rajasthan to reinstate the workman with full back wages. The matter however was challenged before this Court in writ jurisdiction by the appellant- State. The writ application was disposed of by modifying the award to the extent that workman concerned will not be entitled for any benefits prior to 4/9/2000 that being the date of award. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the workman had left the work at his own and since he had not continuously worked for more than 240 days, there was no requirement to comply with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. From the impugned award, it would be manifest that the required documents were not brought by way of evidence in the labour court in rebuttal of the assertion of the workman that he has continuously worked for 240 days. The labour court vide order dated 17/1/1995 had specifically directed the employer, the State of Rajasthan to produce documents in rebuttal of assertion of the workman but the same was never produced. The labour court and also learned Single Judge of this Court concurrently held that the DBSAW No.299/2008. 3 provisions of Section 25F was not complied with when the workman had continuously worked for 240 days and, therefore, was entitled for reinstatement. In view of concurrent findings of facts recorded by labour court and also learned Single Judge of this Court, in our view, no interference would be required in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd. and another : (2003) 3 SCC 524. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. (NARAYAN ROY), C.J. anil