1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3460/2004 Arun Kumar Vs. Labour Court & Ors. DATE OF ORDER :: 17th May, 2007 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Vijay Mehta, for the petitioner. Mr. Shyam Ladrecha, Addl. Govt. Advocate. .... By this petition for writ validity, propriety and correctness of the award dated 23.1.2004 passed by the labour court, Jodhpur in industrial dispute No.75/2002 is challenged. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the labour court erroneously held that the petitioner did not complete continuous service with the employer as he failed to establish that he worked up to 31.1.1991. According to counsel for the petitioner application (Annexure-4) was preferred by the workman seeking a direction to call the muster rolls and attendance register to produce the same in evidence but that was denied by the labour court and solely on basis of available muster rolls and pay vouchers the finding with regard to continuous service was given by the labour court. Heard counsel for the parties and also examined the award impugned. 2 From perusal of the award impugned it is apparent that the labour court examined the entire record and the evidence available on record. The labour court specifically held that the fact with regard to working could be established from muster rolls as well as the pay vouchers, therefore, there was no need to call the attendance register. I do not find any error in that as the pay vouchers are the documents sufficient to prove working of a person with employer. It is true that Sh. J.P. Mathur, Junior Engineer with the employer stated in cross- examination that no muster roll was maintained after October 1990 but that is of no consequence as the pay vouchers were produced in evidence. Beside the above it is also pertinent to note that the workman was said to be discontinued from service in the year 1991, but he raised the dispute in the year 2000, i.e. after a lapse of about nine years and no explanation for that is given. For the reasons mentioned above I do not find any error in the award impugned that may warrant interference of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India. The petition for writ, therefore, is dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR ),J. Jgoyal