1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. WRIT PETITION NO.2450 OF 2006 Rajendra Singh Mehta ..Petitioner. Vs. The Presiding Officer, Tenth Labour Court, Mumbai & anr. ..Respondents. ... Mr. G.R. Naik with Mr. Jaiprakash Sawant for the Petitioner. Mr. A.D. Shetty for the Respondents. ... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 25th September, 2006. P.C. : There is a finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court in the present case that the Petitioner was engaged as a truck driver only on what is known as “assignment basis” and that he has not established having worked for 240 days in a year. The burden was clearly on the Petitioner to do so having regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Surendranagar District Panchayat v. Jethabhai Pitamberbhai1 and in Batala Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd. v. 1 2006 I CLR 3. 2 Sowaran Singh2. The same view had earlier been taken by the Supreme Court in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani3 and Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas4. The Labour Court found that the testimony of the Petitioner suffered from several contradictions. The finding of fact does not warrant interference under Article 226. The Petition is accordingly dismissed. 2 2006 I CLR 23. 3 2002 I CLR 922. 4 2004 III CLR 543.