JUDGMENT 1. - This petition has been filed challenging the award dated 27- 11-2013 passed by the Labour Court No.2, Jaipur whereby the claim of the petitioner workman alleging illegal termination was rejected. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Mistri on 1-6-1979 in the office of the Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Sub Division Lalsot District Dausa and worked in that capacity upto 29- 6-1983, but was then removed from service by a verbal order on 30-6-1983 without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1947'). An industrial dispute was thereupon raised before the Conciliation Officer but no settlement could be arrived at. On failure report being submitted, the State Government referred the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court, where the workman filed a statement claiming that he had continuously worked for more than 240 days during the period of twelve months immediately preceding his termination on 30-6- 1983, without compliance with Section 25F of the Act of 1947 as neither was he served with notice of one month nor pay in lieu thereof, nor he was paid retrenchment compensation. It was stated that no seniority list was prepared prior to removing the petitioner from service but persons junior to him were retained in service in breach of Section 25G of the Act of 1947. 3. The department opposed the claim of the workman and submitted that according to muster roll of the department or otherwise the petitioner workman had never been employed with the department continuously for any length of time to warrant compliance with Section 25F of the Act of 1947. And in the nature of work and intermittent employment a seniority list being drawn was not necessary. It was also stated that the dispute was raised by the workman after a period of sixteen years from the date of his alleged termination without any reason for such delay even being proferred. The Labour Court on the evidence laid before it by the contesting parties, dismissed the claim of the petitioner workman. Hence this petition. 4. A perusal of the impugned award indicates that the Labour Court considering the available muster rolls exhibited by the department for the years of 1979 to 1983 found that the petitioner workman had only worked for 19 days in September, 1979 and for 21 days in September, 1980. Hence this petition. 4. A perusal of the impugned award indicates that the Labour Court considering the available muster rolls exhibited by the department for the years of 1979 to 1983 found that the petitioner workman had only worked for 19 days in September, 1979 and for 21 days in September, 1980. The department had also filed an affidavit on 19-11-2007 stating that record of the remainder period in issue during which the petitioner workman claimed to have worked with the department was not available. The workman was invited to visit the department to make necessary inspection. The court noted that the workman did not visit the office of the respondent for inspection of the record. The Labour court held that the petitioner workman had failed to prove as was his initial burden that he had continuously worked for 240 days in the 12 months immediately preceding his alleged termination on 30-6-1983. The Labour Court also noted that the petitioner workman for the first time raised industrial dispute in the year 1998 after a delay of about 15 years from his alleged termination on 30-6-1983 for which delay no plausible explanation had been proferred by the workman. This delay by itself was fatal to the claim. The claim was therefore dismissed. 5. Heard. Considered. 6. From the facts on record, evidently the petitioner workman first raised an industrial dispute of his alleged termination on 30-6- 1983 only in the year 1998 after a long gap of 15 years. The Apex Court in the case of Haryana State Cooperative Land Development Bank v. Neelam [ 2005(1) LLJ 1153 ] has held that an industrial dispute belatedly raised after thirteen years was liable to be dismissed at the threshold. On this state of law the claim on the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner workman after a delay of 15 years from the date of his alleged illegal termination was liable to be dismissed without anything more. It was rightly so dismissed. Nothing perverse or illegal can be attributed to the impugned award. 7. In the circumstances, the impugned award does not warrant any interference by this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. The petition is without force. Dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******