[2025:RJ-JD:55258]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7307/2017 M/s. Adarsh Industries, Pratap Nagar, Bhilwara Raj. Through Its Partner Smt. Kanta Devi Wife Of Sh, Resident Of 217, Vakil Colony, Bhilwara Raj.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Labour Court, Bhilwara Raj.

2. Istaq Khan S/o Shri Abdul Rehman, Resident Of Jawahar Nagar, Bhilwara. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pushkar Taimini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramendra Singh Saluja HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS : 04/11/2025 DATE ON WHICH ORDER IS RESERVED : 04/11/2025 FULL ORDER OR OPERATIVE PART : Full Order DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16/01/2026 BY THE COURT:-

1. The instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 26.10.2016 passed by the learned Labour Judge, Bhilwara, in Labour Court (Reference) LCR No. 69/2007. By the impugned order, the learned Labour Court, while adjudicating the reference arising out of a petition under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as “The act of 1947”), declined the relief of reinstatement with all consequential benefits and, instead, awarded a lump sum compensation of ₹50,000/- to the workman in lieu of reinstatement, holding the retrenchment to be illegal.

2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that the respondent– workman raised an industrial dispute alleging illegal retrenchment w.e.f. 28.04.2006, which, upon failure of conciliation, was referred by the State Government to the Labour Court, Bhilwara. The workman asserted continuous service since 1982 and pleaded violation of Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the Act of

1947, seeking reinstatement with consequential benefits.

2.1 The employer disputed the claim of long service, contending that the workman had worked intermittently, had voluntarily abandoned service, and had not completed 240 days of continuous service, besides asserting closure of the establishment. Upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence led by both sides, the learned Labour Court held the termination dated 28.04.2006 to be illegal and ordered reinstatement. The Labour Court, by award dated 26.10.2016, granted a lump sum compensation of ₹50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. Aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the material annexed with the writ petition.

4. Upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal recorded a categorical finding that the workman had rendered 240 days of continuous service in the calendar year preceding the date of termination. The employer’s plea that the workman had worked only 164 days was found to be unsupported by any cogent material, particularly in the absence of attendance or wage records. Consequently, the workman was held to be in continuous service under Section 25-B of the Act of 1947. The termination, having been effected without compliance of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, was therefore adjudged illegal and unjustified.

5. This Court is exercising revisional jurisdiction, wherein a re- appreciation of evidence or fresh fact-finding is neither called for nor warranted. No cogent or compelling reason has been brought on record to dislodge or overturn the findings of fact recorded by the learned Tribunal. The finding that the workman had completed 240 days of service is based on due appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, whereas the petitioner-employer’s plea that the workman had worked only for 164 days has rightly been held to be unconvincing and unsupported by any material evidence.

5.1 The completion of 240 days of service squarely brings the workman within the ambit of continuous service under Section 25- B of the Act of 1947. Prior to e