1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.5966/2002. : : Satyanarain Sharma Vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur & Anr. : : Date of Order 8.4.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. B. B. L. Sharma for the petitioner. Mr. Anurag Agarwal for the respondent No.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the award dated 1.5.2000 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur by which the Tribunal while answering the reference made to the appropriate government held that there was no violation of provisions of Section 25-F & H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating services of the petitioner. 3. Shri B. B. L. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that Tribunal has illegally held that there was no violation of Section 25-F & H of the Act. In fact, the date of termination of petitioner was 31.8.1996 and on 2 that basis his working was for 240 days, is true. It was argued that petitioner has also worked for 79 days, therefore, that period would also be calculated. With regard to Section 25-H learned counsel submitted that the some persons were freshly engaged after termination of petitioner. 4. Shri Anurag Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 opposed the writ petition and argued that award passed by Tribunal was just and proper and, therefore, no interference is called for. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that the Tribunal in the award has clearly mentioned about evidence produced by petitioner according to which he worked for 99 days from 2.2.1996 to 31.5.1996. Even if contention of petitioner is accepted that he also worked in the month of June and July, 1996 then also at the maximum he further worked for 55 days. According to Section 25-F read with 25-B of the Act the period of working has to be counted immediately preceding the date of termination. Contention that 79 days for which petitioner worked with respondent should be added to the aforesaid days cannot be accepted. On violation of Section 3 25-H, petitioner was unable to give any evidence whatsoever that any employee was engaged after termination. I do not find any merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.43.