1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.4540/2002. : : Satyanarain Vs. Judge, Labour Court & Ors. : : Date of Order 9.1.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Deepak Goyal for Mr.C.S.Goyal for the petitioner. Mr. Hemant Gupta, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed challenging the award of Labour Court dated 18.5.2001. The learned Labour Court in the award has recorded the finding that on the basis of evidence that was made before us the petitioner-workman was not able to show that he has worked for 240 days. Shri Deepak Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the copy of muster roll (Annexure-6) relating to month of October, 1988 and was argued that respondents have produced all other muster roll correctly indicating the name of the petitioner as also the name of petitioner's father, but this muster roll contained incorrect entry of name of petitioner's father as Shri Prabhulal instead 2 of Shri Dalu. Learned counsel submitted that this muster roll was filed after cross-examination of the employer's witness Shri Om Pratap Singh and the petitioner, therefore, could not have the opportunity to rebut the same. It is, therefore, prayed that matter may be remanded back to the learned Labour Court. Shri Hemant Gupta, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that Labour Court has correctly analyzed the evidence on record. The respondents have produced whatever evidence they had in their possession for all the months and particulars were submitted by the respondents in the affidavit of their witness Om Pratap Singh. At this stage, the petitioner cannot be permitted to ask for remand of the matter when he did not file such application before the Labour Court. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the affidavit of Om Pratap Singh, I find that the respondents have produced particulars of all the months i.e. July, August, September, November, December, 1988 and January, February, April, May, June, July and September, 1989 giving the number of days for which the petitioner was engaged. There is then no reason to accept the submission that the respondents withheld the number of 3 working days with regard to month of October, 1988. If the petitioner wanted to summon the muster roll for the month of October, 1988, it was for him to timely apply for the same. At this stage, now the matter cannot be remanded just because the petitioner-workman has not completed 240 days. The total number of days the petitioner-workman worked comes to only 186 days and the petitioner did not complete 240 days. Finding of the Labour Court that there was no violation of Section 25-F, therefore, cannot be faulted. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ petition. The same is dismissed accordingly. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.22.