( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6667 OF 2008 Kailash s/o Laxman Chavan PETITIONER VERSUS The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division 1, Aurangabad. RESPONDENT ..... Mr. A.A. More, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.D. Dhongade, advocate for the respondent. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 17th July, 2009] PER COURT : 1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns judgement and order rendered by the learned Judge of Labour Court, Aurangabad in Reference (IDA) No. 9/2001. The learned Judge of the Labour Court dismissed the Reference made by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour under section 10 (1) (c) and section 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The case of the ( 2 ) petitioner was that he was employed as a Labour on Establishment of the respondent w.e.f. 09-02-1986. He worked as such till 08-12-1998. He alleged that he was orally terminated on 09-12-1998. He contended that he had worked for more than 240 days during the relevant period and, therefore, the retrenchment was in breach of section 25 (f) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He contended that he was appointed as Labour because he is project affected person in as much as his land was acquired for the project, namely, “Girija Minor Irrigation Project”. 2. The learned Judge of the Labour Court dismissed the reference application for the reason that the petitioner could not prove that he had worked for more than 240 days continuously in the preceding year prior to the termination. It is further held that the project was completed and, therefore, there was no work available. The learned Judge of the Labour Court held that the employment of the petitioner as a labourer was of temporary nature and that too, came to an end due to completion of irrigation project and hence, he is not ( 3 ) entitled to claim any relief. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Mr. More would submit that though record was called for, yet, the respondent failed to produce the record about attendance of the petitioner at the work and, therefore, it would be necessary to give further opportunity to him to place on record evidence about his continuous work for more than 240 days. He would further submit that in similar situation, the Labour Court allowed the reference application filed by cousin of the petitioner, namely, Gorakhnath Chavan and this Court dismissed the writ petition No. 2611/2003 preferred by the respondent against such judgement and order. It appears that cousin of the petitioner had filed reference (IDA) No. 8/1990 which was allowed by the Labour Court. Considering this fact situation, Mr. Dhongade would submit that if the matter is remanded to the Labour Court, then he would have no objection in as much as the petitioner may avail opportunity to lead any other evidence which is in his possession. He would ( 4 ) submit that the record for the year 1986 to 1987 is available with the Minor Irrigation Department and the same is produced in reference (IDA) No. 8/1997. He has placed relevant communication on record (marked “X”). 5. The question whether the petitioner had worked for more than 240 days is a question of fact and will be required to be addressed on basis of the record and attendance register. Considering these aspects of the matter, the petitioner deserves opportunity to establish his allegation regarding continuous work for more than 240 days. If he will fail to prove such a fact, then naturally, the reference application will be dismissed. The request of the petitioner for remand of the matter is just and proper. 6. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned judgement and order rendered by the learned Judge of the Labour Court is set aside. The reference application be deemed as restored to its original position and the learned Judge of the Labour Court shall grant further opportunity to the petitioner to prove his ( 5 ) case as regards continuous working for more than 240 days. The petitioner shall not avail more than three (3) opportunities and the inquiry be completed within period of six (6) months as far as possible. No costs. 7. The record and proceedings be remitted to the Labour Court. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/WP6667-08