HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 1335 OF 2004 DATED 1ST FEBRUARY, 2010. BETWEEN O.Shiva Shankar ...Petitioner And The Superintending Engineer (R&B),Warangal Circle, Nakkalagutta, Hanamakonda and ors ....Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 1335 OF 2004 ORDER: The unsuccessful petitioner in I.D.No. 77 of 2001 on the ﬁle of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, assails the Nil Award dated 22.8.2003 passed therein. The case of the petitioner before the Labour Court was that he was orally appointed as a NMR Worker by the Roads and Buildings Department in Mulug Sub Division, Warangal. He claimed to have continuously worked under the control of the Roads and Buildings Department upto 31.3.1994 without any interruption. According to him, he was paid consolidated monthly salary of Rs.400/-, which was thereafter enhanced to Rs.900/- per month. While so, it is his grievance that he was orally terminated from service with eﬀect from 1.4.1994 without following the procedure laid down in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity 'the Act of 1947'). He initially approached this Court by way of a Writ Petition along with other similarly situated persons and upon the directions of this Court he approached the Labour Court under Section 2-A(2) of the Act of 1947. By its Award dated 22.8.2003, the Labour Court dismissed the petition. Hence, this Writ Petition. A perusal of the Award under challenge reﬂects that the Labour Court, upon a thorough examination of the material on record, opined that the petitioner failed to establish that he had worked for 240 days during the 12 months immediately preceding his alleged termination from service. Trite to state, unless the workman establishes that he was in continuous service for a period of 240 days within the 12 calendar months preceding the date with reference to which the calculation is to be made, as required under Section 25- B(2) of the Act of 1947, he is not entitled to the statuary protection accorded by Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. In the present case, the petitioner miserably failed to establish that he was engaged by the Roads and Buildings Department. Except for the examination of one other witness who claimed to be a Gangman working in the Roads and Buildings Department, who deposed that the petitioner had worked in the Mulug Sub Division as a NMR Gangman from 1990 to 1994, there is not a scrap of paper to substantiate this claim. As rightly pointed out by the Labour Court, the initial burden is upon the workman to make out compliance with Section 25-B(2) of the Act of 1947 and only thereafter, the onus shifts to the employer. In the present case, the petitioner failed to discharge this burden and the Labour Court was correct in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner could not question his alleged retrenchment on the ground of violation of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. The Award under challenge does not reﬂect any material irregularity warranting exercise of certiorari jurisdiction by this Court. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. --------------------------------------- JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DATED 1st FEBRUARY, 2010. Msnr.