Govind Mathur, J. - (1.) To question correctness of the award dt. 03.08.2007 passed by Labour Court, Bikaner, this petition for writ is preferred.
(2.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court failed to appreciate that as per document Annex.P/6 (Exhibit.W-1), the workman remained in employment of the employer from 01.09.1991 to 30.04.1992 and as per that, he has completed a term of 240 days.
(3.) On examination of the award, it is apparent that after considering the evidence available on record, the labour Court reached at the conclusion that from 01.09.1991 to 30.04.1992 the workman was not in employment for all the days. The Labour Court also reached at the conclusion that the workman failed to establish that his services were dis-continued from 01.05.1992. The findings given by Labour Court are based on sound appreciation of evidence and the learned counsel for the petitioner-workman has also failed to satisfy this Court as to how after break of few days it can be said that the workman was in continuous service, as defined under Sec. 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. No interference of this Court is thus required while exercising the powers under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition for writ is dismissed accordingly. Petition Dismissed.;