JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against award dated 7.6.2004 passed by the Labour Court, Bhilwara in Industrial Dispute Case No. 79/1999, whereby while adjudicating the industrial dispute referred by the State Government, the termination of services of the petitioner-workman has been held to be just and proper. 2. The relevant facts are that the petitioners were engaged as daily wages employees in the Department of Watershed Development and Soil Conservation, Government of Rajasthan. The petitioner's services were brought to an end w.e.f. 18.2.1997. 3. The petitioners raised the industrial dispute, however, the conciliation proceedings failed and the Conciliation Officer submitted his failure report to the State Government, which in its turn referred the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Bhilwara in the following terms: " D;k Jfedx.k loZ lwjtey iq= Jh vejk xqtZj] xksnw iq= jkekth xqtZj] lksyk iq= fdluk catkjk ( ftudk izfrfuf/kRo egkea=h Hkkjrh; etnwj la?k] HkhyokM+k }kjk fd;k x;k gS ) dks d`f"k vf/kdkjh ty xzg.k fodkl ,oa Hkw laj{k.k foHkkx] HkhyokM+k }kjk fnukad 18-2-1997 ls lsok i`Fkd fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gS\ ;fn ugha] rks Jfed fdl jkgr ,oa jkf'k dks izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ " 4. The petitioners submitted their statement of claim before the Labour Court stating therein that the petitioner-Suraj Mai had worked with the respondents from January, 1995 to 17.2.1997, the petitioner-Godu had worked from January, 1994 to 17.2.1997 and petitioner-Sola had worked from January, 1995 to 17.2.1997 and thus, all the petitioners have rendered continuous service for more than 240 days preceding the date of retrenchment. According to the petitioners, before terminating their services, the conditions precedent for valid retrenchment as envisaged by Section 25F were not complied with, that apart, the provisions of Sections 25G and 25H were also violated. 5. The respondent-employer filed counter to the claim submitted by the petitioners as aforesaid taking the stand that the petitioners were never employed as alleged and stated that Users Committee had engaged certain labourers and the petitioners may be amongst them. 6. The parties led their evidence. 5. The respondent-employer filed counter to the claim submitted by the petitioners as aforesaid taking the stand that the petitioners were never employed as alleged and stated that Users Committee had engaged certain labourers and the petitioners may be amongst them. 6. The parties led their evidence. After due consideration of the evidence on record, the Labour Court arrived at the finding that the fact that the petitioners had worked for 240 days or more in a calendar year preceding the date of retrenchment, with the respondents, is not proved on the basis of any cogent evidence on record and therefore, the provisions of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 are not attracted. Hence, this petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that while arriving the finding that none of the petitioners had completed 240 days of service in a calendar year preceding the date of retrenchment, the Labour has not considered the evidence on record in correct perspective. Learned counsel submitted that there was nothing on record suggesting that the petitioners were engaged through User's Committee and therefore, the finding arrived at by the Labour Court is capricious and perverse. Learned counsel submitted that even if the stand taken by the respondents that the petitioners were engaged through User's Committee is accepted, they cannot be deprived of the benefits of the provisions of the Act of 1947. Learned counsel submitted that this aspect of the matter stands covered by a Bench decision of this Court in the matter of M/s Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. v. The Judge, Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Bikaner, RLW 2001(2) Raj. 981 . 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that even if the finding recorded by the Labour Court regarding the petitioners' engagement through User's Committee is ignored, since the petitioners have not been able to establish that they had complete 240 days of service in a calendar year preceding the date of retrenchment, the award passed by the Labour Court does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 10. 9. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 10. It is to be noticed that the respondents have denied the claim of the petitioners-workmen regarding they having completed 240 days of service in a calendar year preceding the date of retrenchment and therefore, the burden of proof to prove that they had completed 240 days of service in a calendar year preceding the date of retrenchment was on them. 11. As laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Range, Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani, (2002) 3 SCC 25 , it is for the workman to lead evidence to show that he had worked for more than 240 days preceding his termination. The Hon'ble Court further observed that filing of an affidavit is only his statement. In his favour and t hat cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had in fact worked for 240 days in a year. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of R.M. Yellati v. Asst. Executive Engineer, (2006) 1 SCC 106 . 12. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that after due consideration of the evidence on record, Labour Court has arrived at the categorical finding that The petitioners have not been able to prove that they had completed 240 days of service in a calendar year preceding the date of retrenchment. The entire evidence on record has been examined by the Labour Court in its entirety and objectivity and therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the Labour Court has not examined the evidence on record in correct perspective does not appear to be correct. 13. It is pertinent to note that the contention of the petitioners that even if they are engaged through User's Committee, they shall be treated to be the employees of the respondent-Department was accepted by the Labour Court. However, the Labour Court arrived at the finding that even if the petitioners were engaged as labourers by the User's Committee, since they have not completed 240 days of service, they are not entitled for the relief claimed for. In this view of the matter, the Bench decision of this Court in Rajasthan Co-opeartive Dairy Federation's case (supra), does not help the petitioners in any manner. 14. In this view of the matter, the Bench decision of this Court in Rajasthan Co-opeartive Dairy Federation's case (supra), does not help the petitioners in any manner. 14. In considered opinion of this Court, the findings arrived at by the Labour Court as aforesaid remain the findings of facts and cannot be said to be capricious or perverse so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of t he Constitution of India. 15. In the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as toPetition dismissed. *******