1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.8756/2006. : : Shree Phool Vs. Labour Court, Bharatpur. : : Date of Order 23.9.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.Neeraj Joshi for Mr.Ravi Shankar Sharma for the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the award of the Labour Court dated 17.2.2005 whereby the reference made to it by the appropriate Government on the question of validity of retrenchment of the workman has been answered. The Labour Court in the award held that the retrenchment of the petitioner-workman was legal, justified and the petitioner would not be entitled to any relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was appointed in January, 1988 and continuously worked with the respondents since his termination on 17.12.1988, he completed 240 days. The respondent has not produced record of the muster rolls and, 2 therefore, an adverse inference should have been drawn to hold that the petitioner has worked continuously for the aforesaid period. Learned counsel argued that burden of proof to show that the workman did not work for 240 days is on the management because they are in possession of the relevant records. It was argued that neither any notice was served upon the petitioner, nor any compensation in terms of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act was granted and nor even the seniority list was prepared. Learned Labour Court has thus erred in law in answering the reference, therefore, the award of the Labour Court deserves to be set aside. A perusal of the award reveals that it has made detailed and thorough discussion. The Management produced as many as 25 documents, but failed to produce muster rolls of May 1988 to July, 1988. Even if 78 days for these 3 months are added to working of the petitioner i.e. 128 ½ days, it does not complete 240 days. The Labour Court has with reference to the various judgments of the Supreme Court held that the Management produced all these documents which does not mean that the workman is completely absolved of its liability to discharge his burden by production of evidence to show that he has been working all 3 this time. The Labour Court has further held that even if the earlier period for which working of the petitioner was proved to be only 128 ½ days and number of holidays are added it, this does not make 240 days. The finding recorded by the Labour Court is a finding of fact and in view of detailed discussion made by the Labour Court from para No.9 to para No.14, it cannot be said that findings recorded are either erroneous or otherwise perverse. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ petition. In the result, this writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.12.