IMPORTANT POINT
It is for the workman claimant to lead evidence to show that he had infact worked upto 240 days in the year preceding his termination.

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.

2. The respondent No. 2- Bhagwan Das (hereinafter referred to as the workman ) raised a dispute which was referred by the Government of Rajasthan to the Labour Court, Sri Ganga Nagar, Rajasthan. The dispute of the workman, inter alia, was to the effect that though he was appointed as a daily-wages employee on 1st March, 1990 and continued up to 15th July, 1992 without break. His services were terminated by oral order. It was pleaded that the dispensation of service amounted to retrenchment and since the provisions of Section 25(F), (G) and (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act ) were violated he was entitled to the reinstatement and consequential benefits. The present appellant (hereinafter referred to as the employer ) refuted the allegations. It was specifically stated that the workman had not really worked continuously from 01.3.1990 to 15.7.1992 as pleaded. On the contrary, the workman was engaged whenever there was work which was of casual nature. His total period of engagement during the years 1990, 1991 and 1992 was 56 1/2 days, 64 days and 122 1/2 days respectively. He had worked for a total period of 138 days during the preceding 12 months. Whenever there was an additional work, the engagement was done. Keeping in view the scope for additional engagement persons were engaged and there was no violation of any provision of the Act. The Labour Court came to hold that the total period during which the workman rendered work was more than 240 days. Though specific direction was given to the employer to produce the muster roll for the period from 17.6.1991 to 12.11.1991, the same was not produced. Accordingly it was held that the sanctioned days and the days covered by the muster roll, which was not produced, taken together indicated that the workman had worked for more than 240 days. Accordingly direction was given to reinstate the workman and for paying 30% of the back wages.

3. The order was challenged before the Rajasthan High Court by filing a Civil Writ Application bearing No. 2730/2002. A learned Single Judge at the first instance dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that muster roll for a particular period was not produced. It was held that no interference was called for considering the limited jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the Constitution ), more particularly when only 30% of the back wages had been awarded. A Civil Special Appeal was filed which was also dismissed by the Division Bench holding that since the retrenchment was found to be invalid on appreciation of evidence and for non production of relevant document; no interference is called for.

4. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted that both the Labour Court and the High Court fell into error by placing burden on the employer to prove that the concerned workman has not worked for more than 240 days. The Labour Court failed to notice that even if the period for which the muster roll was not produced is reckoned; then also the requirement of 240 days work during twelve months preceding alleged date of termination is not established.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-workman submitted that as the Labour Court has taken into account all relevant factors, no interference is called for. According to him the workman has clearly established that he worked for more than 240 days during the relevant period.

6. It was the case of the workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the concerned year. This claim was denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked up to 240 days in the year preceding his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is only his own statement which is in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had worked for 240 days in