Ashok Parihar, J. - (1.) Petitioners have challenged the award dated 22.7.2002 passed by 1 the Labour Court No. 1, Jaipur, by which, while holding the termination of services of the respondent No. 1 (the concerned workman) as illegal and unjustified, the concerned workman has been ordered to be reinstated without back wages.
(2.) After hearing counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record as also the impugned award.
(3.) Miss Nimisha Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, with all vehemence at her command, while relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Essen Deinki v. Rajiv Kumar, reported as AIR 2003 SC 38 , has submitted that the burden of proving the work for more than 240 days have not been discharged by the concerned workman. The objection in regard to delay in raising the dispute has also been raised.;