1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.738/1995. : : Gaya Prasad Vs. Executive Officer & Anr. : : Date of Order 3.3.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTI CE MOHAMMAD RAFI Q Mr. J. K. Singhi for the petitioner. Mr. Rajneesh Gupta for the respondent (s). Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner assailing the award passed by Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court dated 13.4.1994 by which industrial reference with regard to dispute of service of petitioner has been answered in terms that termination order of petitioner is just and legal and he is not entitled to any relief. According to terms of reference the respondents removed the petitioner from service on 6.9.1988. 3. Shri J. K. Singhi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted as per the failure report, the respondents themselves admitted that petitioner worked with 2 them which was based on letter of Executive Officer of Municipal Board, Dholpur dated 17.11.1988 certifying working of petitioner from January 1988 to September 1988 for 240 days. It was argued that if number of holidays are added petitioner worked for 240 days. 4. Shri Rajneesh Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the writ petition and argued that documents Exhibits 3 & 4 letter of Executive Officer dated 17.11.1988 and failure report were denied by the respondent at the time of admission of denial but the petitioner on his own did not lead any evidence and could not prove that he has actually worked for 240 days in the preceding calendar year, which was required under Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act. It is submitted that learned Industrial Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim of petitioner because initial burden of proof lay on the petitioner-workman. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rejoined and submitted that petitioner due to circumstances beyond his control could not adduce the evidence and even than the documents which are produced, such as the failure report, could not be denied by the respondents. 3 6. Perusal of failure report indicates that what was stated by petitioner was that he worked for 240 days but it was not clearly stated that this working was for 240 days within last calendar year. Even on perusal of letter of Executive Officer (Annex.3), it would be evident that working of petitioner between January 1988 to September, 1988 was totaling 206 days, but it is not clear whether these days also included gazetted holidays or not. The petitioner has failed to produce documents, which the petitioner was required to produce. Clearly, the petitioner has failed to adduce evidence to prove violation of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFI Q)J. A.Arora/ - Item No.H/ 5.