ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) IN the present appeal challenge is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant. In the Letters patent Appeal challenge was to the order passed by a learned single Judge who had dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.

( 2 ) A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice.

( 3 ) CLAIM was made by the respondents to the effect that their services were terminated without following the procedure prescribed under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'act' ). It was their case that they were employed on regular basis and, therefore, the termination of service is illegal. In the claim petition they had averred that they were working since 1991 and had worked continuously till there was termination of service by an oral order on 16. 5. 1994. Appellant took the stand that the respondents were engaged as daily rated helpers. Their appointments were not in terms of the recruitment rules and workers were called for rendering services as and when required. It was therefore said that the claim regarding continuance of service was mis-conceived. The respondents only worked for a few days. In fact after November, 1993 there was no engagement made as their services were not required. The Labour Court, ahmedabad by order dated 9. 7. 1999 directed re-instatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages. The order was assailed before the High Court. It was contended that the respondents were working as daily wagers and they had not rendered regular service. A learned Single judge of the High court dismissed the writ petition holding that each of the respondents had completed 240 days of service and, therefore, the order of the Labour Court was justified. As noted above, writ appeal was dismissed.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no pleading that the respondents had completed 240 days of service. In fact their claim in the claim petition was that they had rendered continuous service without indicating any particulars. In any event, there was no finding recorded by the labour Court that they had completed 240 days of service. Learned Single Judge therefore was not justified in holding that the Labour Court had concluded that the concerned workmen had completed 240 days of service. It was further submitted that all relevant records were produced before the labour Court which were lightly brushed aside and conclusions were arrived at on conjectures by holding that the claim of the present respondents was to be accepted.

( 5 ) IT was further submitted that the onus is on the person who claims to have rendered more than 240 days of service to establish it. The Labour Court and the High Court erroneously held that it was for the employer to establish that the claimants-workmen had not completed 240 days of service

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that after analyzing the factual position in detail the labour Court and the High Court have arrived at the correct conclusion.

( 7 ) IN a large number of cases the position of law relating to the onus to be discharged has been delineated. In Range forest Officer v. S. T. Hadimani (2002 (3) SCC 25), it was held as follows:

"2. In the instant case, dispute was referred to the Labour Court that the respondent had worked for 240 days and his service had been terminated without paying him any retrenchment compensation. The appellant herein did not accept this and contended that the respondent had not worked for 240 days. The Tribunal vide its award dated 10. 8. 1998 came to the conclusion that the service had been terminated without giving retrenchment compensation. In arriving at the conclusion that the respondent had worked for 240 days the Tribunal stated that the burden was on the management to show that there was justification in termination of the service and that the affidavit of