JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner-workman is challenging validity of the award dated 23.04.2010 (Annexure-6) passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur in I.D. Case No.55/2006, whereby, the reference made by the appropriate Government on 14.06.2005 was answered against the petitioner workmen. 3. As per facts of the case, an industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner-workman against his alleged termination w.e.f. 31.12.1987. The Conciliation Officer after failure of conciliation proceedings forwarded the matter to the appropriate Government for reference. 4. The appropriate Government referred the following question to the Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur:- " D;k izkFkhZ }kjk rFkkdfFkr lsok lekfIr ds yxHkx 18 o"kZ ckn fookn izLrqr djuk mfpr gSa\ D;k fookn dks fo|eku ekuk tkosxk\ ;fn gkWa rks D;k lgk;d vfHk;Urk] flapkbZ mi[k.M fljksgh rFkk vf/k'kk"kh vfHk;Urk] flapkbZ [k.M fljksgh }kjk muds deZdkj Jh fuEckjke iq= Jh Hkh[kk th jsckjh xkao iksLV ikMh0 rg0 fljksgh dks fnlEcj 1987 ls lsok ls gVk;k x;k Fkk\ ;fn gkWa rks D;k lsok ls gVkuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gS\ ;fn ugha rks Jfed fdl jkgr dk vf/kdkjh gS\ " 5. Before the Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur a claim application was filed by the petitioner-workman, in which, it is stated that by oral order on 21.02.1987 an appointment was made and he continued on the post till 31.12.1987 as daily wages employee in irrigation project. 6. The respondent-department filed reply to the writ petition and specifically stated that contention of petitioner workman with regard to his tenure of appointment is not accepted and further it is made clear that petitioner's appointment came to an end due to completion of irrigation project. Further, it is pointed out that petitioner-workman has raised an industrial dispute after eighteen years and, without any documentary evidence, it is not possible to ascertain whether the petitioner-workman completed 240 days or not, because as per official record no documentary evidence is available nor documentary evidence has been filed by the petitioner-workman to prove the fact that petitioner-workman has completed 240 days in the one calender year. 7. The Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur after taking into consideration the entire facts of the case rejected the claim of the petitioner and held that petitioner-workman cannot be permitted to raise industrial dispute after expiry of eighteen years. 7. The Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur after taking into consideration the entire facts of the case rejected the claim of the petitioner and held that petitioner-workman cannot be permitted to raise industrial dispute after expiry of eighteen years. It is also held that there is no evidence on record to prove the fact that petitioner's services were terminated in the month of December, 1987 without compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act ,1947. 8. After taking into consideration entire facts and pleadings of the case, I am of the opinion that the finding arrived at by the Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur is based upon facts and finding of face cannot be interfered under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the reason that award passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur is based upon the finding that no documentary evidence is on record to prove the fact that petitioner-workman has completed more than 240 days. 9. In this view of the matter, I see no reason to interfere in this writ petition. Hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******