In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur Order S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3438/2004 Ramgopal Yadav vs Manager, Hadoti Regional Bank and another. Date of Order: 16.1.2009 Present HON'BLE MR.MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J. Mr.Deepak Goyal, for the petitioner. Mr.Ghanshyam Singh, for the respondents. By the Court: Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the award passed by the Central Industrial Tribunal, Kota on 19th December, 2003. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Labour Court has not appreciated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. He in this connection referred to para-4 of the Statement of Claim and also reply along with affidavit of the witness of the respondent Om Prakash Gupta who in his affidavit admitted that Ram Babu was appointed as Class IVth. in December 1991. Learned counsel argued that the Labour Court not only justified in observing that since the petitioner had applied and was sanctioned loan by the respondent bank in 1988 for setting up a shop of cycle repairing etc. therefore, a waiver of right can be conferred on the conduct of the petitioner. Learned counsel relying the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Irrigation Research Institute and Ors vs Kripal Singh ( 2008(2) SCC (L&S) 954 argued mere delay cannot be a reason for non suiting a workman of the remedy where reference is made and the labour court was not justified in not considering the delay. 4.Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that the burden of proof to show that there is violation of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act lay on the petitioner workman. The Labour Court in this connection has rightly relied on the judgment reported in AIR 2002 SC 1147 (Range Forest Officer vs ST Hadimani). The petitioner failed to prove that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year immediately preceding the date of his retrenchment. The petitioner was granted loan in the year 1988 by the respondent-Bank for setting up private business. He raised the disputed still after the delay of 9 years. The award of the Labour Court is wholly unjustified. Learned counsel also argued that the Labour Court has not recorded any finding of violation of Section 25 H of the Industrial Disputes Act. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that the Labour Court clearly held that there was no proof of violation of either section 25 F or 25 H of the Act. One witness produced by the petitioner and again in this court the petitioner could hardly prove Annexure 4 dated 21.9.94 that petitioner worked for 240 days immediately preceding the date of retrenchment. No one was produced to provey the experience certificate. No proof of violation of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act has been placed on record. Mere statement of Om Prakash Gupta that one Shri Ram Babu was presently working in the branch on the post which was sanctioned in December 1991 does not establish the case of the petitioner. The petitioner has not produced any witness to prove this statement of Om Prakash was denied by the respondent. I therefore find that the above cited case of Supreme court is not applicable in the present case as there is delay of nine years in raising the dispute. The petitioner has failed to point out any illegality in the award passed by the Labour Court. 6.Consequently, I find no merit in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq),J om