##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:4151]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1615/2003

Govinda S/o Shri Phooli, Aged About 38 Years, R/o

Chhapar Mohalla Kumher, District Bharatpur (Since

Deceased) Through Legal Heirs

1/1. Gordhani W/o Late Govinda, R/o Chhapar Mohalla,

Kumher District Bharatpur

1/2. Omprakash S/o Late Govinda, R/o Chhapar Mohalla,

Kumher District Bharatpur

1/3. Seeta D/o Late Govinda, R/o Chhapar Mohalla, Kumher

District Bharatpur

----Petitioners

Versus

1. The Judge, Labour Court, Bharatpur

2. The Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department Building

And Road, Sub Division Iv District Sub Division, Bharatpur

Presently Pwd Sub Division Ii Bharatpur

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mrs. Sudesh Kasana

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi, AGC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Order

29/01/2026

1. Feeling aggrieved by award dated 21.01.2003 passed

by the Labour Court, Bharatpur, whereby the reference in respect

of legality and validity of termination of the petitioner, has been

answered by the Labour Court against the petitioner-workman,

petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present

writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of

India.

(Uploaded on 02/02/2026 at 10:03:42 AM)

(Downloaded on 15/02/2026 at 06:34:04 AM)

[2026:RJ-JP:4151] (2 of 5) [CW-1615/2003]

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner

that the petitioner was initially engaged as Beldar on 01.01.1985,

and worked continuously upto 31.12.1989. Without making

compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

and without giving any notice, notice pay or retrenchment

compensation, his services were terminated with effect from

01.01.1990.

3. Feeling aggrieved, he raised industrial disputes under

the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which was

ultimately referred to the Labour Court, Bharatpur, where the

petitioner filed his statement of claim, which was opposed by the

respondents by filing reply to the statement of claim. Thereafter,

both the parties submitted their affidavits in evidence. It was

submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner

filed an application before the Labour Court for directing the

respondents to produce record of the period. Such application was

allowed by the Labour Court, yet incomplete record was produced

by the respondents-employer. Still, without drawing adverse

inference, award dated 21.01.2003 has been passed with the

finding that the petitioner has failed to prove that he had worked

for more than 240 days immediately preceding 12 calendar

months from the date of termination i.e. 01.01.1990.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that award

dated 01.01.1990 passed by the Labour Court, is against the facts

and circumstances of the case, material and evidence on record as

well as the findings arrived at by the Labour Court are baseless

and unfounded and perverse. It is submitted by learned counsel

for the petitioner that when specific order was passed by the

(Uploaded on 02/02/2026 at 10:03:42 AM)

(Downloaded on 15/02/2026 at 06:34:04 AM)

[2026:RJ-JP:4151] (3 of 5) [CW-1615/2003]

Labour Court directing the respondents for producing record and

the same was not completely produced then adverse inference

ought to have been drawn against the respondents-employers, but

it was not done by the Labour Court.

5. Learned counsel further submits that in addition to

above, learned Labour Court has not appreciated the fact that

without preparing the seniority list and without following principle

of 'first-come, last go' while retaining juniors of the services of the

petitioner were terminated in violation of Section 25-G of the Act

of 1947.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the contrary,

supported the impugned award and opposed the writ petition and

submitted that award has been passed by the Labour Court on the

basis of material and evidence available on record. The Labour

Court has given sound finding based upon the legal provisions,

where the peti