ORDER : 1. This petition is directed against the award dated 9.7.2004, published vide notification dated 17.2.2005, passed by the Labour Court, Udaipur in Labour Dispute Case No. 57/99, whereby inter-alia the termination of services of the petitioner has been held to be just and proper. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that while recording the finding that the petitioner has not completed 240 days of service in a calendar year preceding the date of retrenchment dated 31.10.1996, the Labour Court has relied upon the evidence produced on behalf of the respondent employer, however, the petitioner was not extended an opportunity to lead evidence. It is submitted that the finding recorded without extending the opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence is bad in law. 3. It is noticed that the legality of award dated 9.7.2004, published vide notification dated 17.2.2005, has been questioned by the petitioner by filing present writ petition after a lapse of more than 12 years. No plausible and acceptable explanation is furnished for inordinate delay and laches in filing the petition. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed on this count alone. 4. Coming to the merits of the case, it is pertinent to note that the dispute questioning the termination of services on behalf of number of workmen was raised by Bhartiya Van Vibhag Karamchari Sangh, Banswara. A perusal of the award reveals that the workmen were extended an opportunity to lead evidence. The documentary evidence produced on behalf of the workmen is also taken into consideration by the Labour Court while passing the impugned award. Obviously, the burden to prove completion of 240 days of service in a calendar year preceding the date of retrenchment was upon the petitioner. However, no evidence was brought on record in this regard. To the contrary, the employer, on the basis of the documentary evidence, has proved that the petitioner herein was not in continuous service for 240 days in a calendar year preceding the date of retrenchment. The finding arrived at by the Labour Court after due examination of the evidence on record 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 the Constitution of India. 5. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.