-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.1119 OF 2009 Shri Chanappa Laxman Chavan : Petitioner (Orig.Party No.2) V/s. The Chief Executive Officer And the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Zilla Parishad, Solapur. : Respondent (Ori.Party No.1) ... Mr.Shrishail Sakhare for the petitioner. None present for the respondent. ... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 16, 2009. P.C. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Labour Court, Solapur, dated 2.1.2008 by which the learned Labour Court has rejected the petitioner’s claim that he was wrongfully terminated. 2. The basic question before the learned Labour Court was whether the petitioner had completed 240 days in a year within the meaning of section 25B of the Industrial -: 2 :- Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the "Act". In support of this contention, the petitioner examined one Subhas Sadashiv Hejage as his witness. This witness who was a Deputy Engineer in the year 1989 when the petitioner was said to have worked for 240 days produced a certificate to the following effect:- "party no.2 was working as the daily-wage-earner-cum watchman with party no.1 from 8.7.87 to 1.8.88 and 1.8.88 to 30.9.89 on the afforestation work at the Health Centre, Chapalgaon compound." This witness, however, admitted in his cross-examination that he had no personal knowledge as to whether the petitioner had worked with the respondent during the year 1987-88. This witness then admitted that the certificate does not bear the signature of the Office Superintendent nor does it mention how many days the petitioner worked in every year. The Labour Court, therefore, did not accept the petitioner’s contention on the basis of such a certificate. 3. Mr.Sakhare, the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that it would have been possible for the petitioner to show that he had worked for the -: 3 :- requisite number of days if the respondent had produced the muster-roll. The learned counsel, however, fairly accepted that the petitioner did not at any stage give any notice to produce the document or called upon the respondent to produce the muster-roll in any other manner. In this view of the matter, the finding of fact arrived by the Labour Court is not vitiated by any perversity and does not call for any interference. 4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. S.A. BOBDE, J.