D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.885/2008 State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Shri Moti Singh & Anr. Date of Judgment :: July 24, 2008. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. S.S. Sharma Govt.Counsel for the appellant(s). *** This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 3.9.2007 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant-State of Rajasthan in which challenge was made to the award passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur. The learned labour court in its award dated 17.11.1998 while answering a reference of industrial dispute held that removal of respondent- workman by the appellant vide order dated 16.11.1985 was illegal and violative of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and accordingly held him entitled to reinstatement with continuity in service and full back wages. The learned Single Judge modified the award in the terms that the workman shall be entitled to reinstatement but he shall get back wages only from the date of award. The learned counsel for the appellants has aruged that the respondent-workman was engaged in the National Rural Employment Programme (NREP) and that he had not completed 240 days. It was argued that the respondent did not produce any proof of the fact that he had worked for 240 days in the calender year immediately preceding to the date of his retrenchment. The labour court as also the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter. We have gone through the award passed by the labour court as also the judgment of the learned Single Judge. -2- In the labour court, the witness who was produced on behalf of the management, namely Tara Chand, Asst.Engineer, in his cross-examination, admitted that the respondent-workman was removed from service on 16.11.1985 whereas he was initially posted in that office in February 1990 but he was making this statement based on his personal knowledge. Neither the notification by which the works under NREP were exempted from the purview of Industrial Disputes Act, was produced nor was any other document such as muster-roll etc. were submitted to show that the respondent-workman did not work for 240 days. On the contrary, the respondent-workman proved his working for more than 240 days in the calender year immediately preceding to the date of his retrenchment by his evidence which was accepted by the labour court. We, therefore, do not find any error in the award of the labour court as also the judgment of the learned Single Judge upholding the same. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J. (NARAYAN ROY),CJ. Skant/-