1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2989/2003. SAMPAT LAL VS. LABOUR COURT & ANR. DATE OF ORDER : 29.05.2007. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. Vijay Mehta for the petitioner. Mr. Shyam Ladrecha, AGA, for the respondents. By this petition for writ, a challenge is given to the award dated 28.3.2003 passed by Labour Court, Jodhpur in Industrial Dispute Case No.144/99. The appropriate government by its notification dated 30.12.98 referred an industrial dispute for its adjudication to the Labour Court, Jodhpur in the terms “whether raising of the industrial dispute by Shri Sampat Lal s/o Shri Kalu Ram Gurjar after lapse of 10 years is justified? If yes, then whether termination of workman w.e.f. 30.8.95 by the employer Assistant Engineer, Sub Division Parbatsar, Department of Irrigation, Nagaur is legal and justified? If not, then for what relief, the workman is entitled? The case of the petitioner before the Labour Court was that an appointment was given to him as Helper in 2 Department of Irrigation on 1.9.86, but he was retrenched from service on 30.8.95 without adhering mandatory condition precedent for a valid retrenchment and also in ignorance of the provisions of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Before the Labour Court the workman also moved an application (Annexure 3) for summoning muster rolls relating to the period from 1.9.86 to 30.9.95, but the same were not produced despite order. The Labour Court by the award impugned dated 28.3.2003 while answering the reference held that the workman was not in continuous employment of the respondent employer as he worked only for a period of 119 days in the year 1995. Challenge is given to the award impugned on the ground that the Labour Court materially erred while not treating the workman in continuous employment without examining the muster roll relating to the period commencing from 1.9.86 to 30.9.95, though the same were summoned by the Labour Court. The Labour Court though noticed the fact that all the muster rolls were not available, but only on basis of muster roll pertaining to the year 1995, the finding was given. 3 Learned counsel for the respondents defended the award impugned in general on the count that no error that may warrant interference of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India appears in the award impugned, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Heard counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the workman moved an application (Annexure 3) to summon the muster roll for the period commencing from 1.9.86 to 30.9.95, but same were not produced by the employer despite order. The Labour Court examined only the muster roll pertaining to the months of January, February and March 1995 and on basis of those muster rolls only, the finding that the workman was not in continuous employment could have not been given. The Labour Court should have examined all the muster rolls for the period the workman said to have been in employment of the respondents. It is pertinent to note that an order to summon the relevant muster rolls was already passed, but for no just reason those muster rolls were not produced before the Labour Court and the finding is given without considering this fact, therefore, the award impugned can safely be said perverse. As such, the award dated 28.3.2003 deserves to be quashed. 4 Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The award impugned dated 28.3.2003 is quashed. The matter is remanded to the Labour Court to decide afresh by summoning and then examining the muster rolls for the period commencing from 1.9.86 to 30.9.95. No order to cost. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/