The burden of proof for continuous service and lack of gainful employment after termination lies with the employee, and the court's approach must adhere to settled legal principles.

1. To state in brief, respondent no.1 had filed the complaint (ULP) No.68 of 1992 before the Labour Court, Chandrapur alleging unfair labour practice on the part of the present petitioners under Section 28 r/w Item No.1(b)(d) and (f) to Schedule IV of MRTU and PULP Act and claimed reinstatement with continuity of service with full back wages. He contended that he was initially appointed as helper in the Mechanical Section, Irrigation Division of Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli on daily wages as per the order dated 2/9/1983 passed by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation, Z.P. At that time, he was paid wages at the rate of Rs.13.90 Ps. per day. The wages were paid for the work done as unskilled heavy rate. According to him, even though an order dated 28.5.87/1.6.87 was issued, terminating his services w.e.f. 31/5/1987, he was not relieved from his duties and he continued to work on the same post till 20/9/1989 when he was not allowed to perform his duties and by oral order his services were terminated. According to him, he had worked for more than six years when his services were terminated. No reason was given for termination. No enquiry was held, no notice was given to him about termination and nor wages in lieu of notice were paid nor any retrenchment compensation was offered to him. It is also contended that no seniority list was prepared and nor he was terminated according to seniority list. According to him, the work was available on the date of termination and therefore, the termination was illegal and is liable to be set aside. With these contentions, he prayed for reinstatement with continuity of service with full back wages w.e.f. 20/9/1089.

2. Petitioners contested that complaint by filing a written statement (Exh.27). According to them, there was no post of helper available in Zilla Parishad and the appointment of the complainant was not made as per the Rules and Regulations framed by the Government for recruitment. His appointment as a helper was illegal and against the provisions of Z.P.Services Recruitment Rules, 1965 and 1967. It was further contended that his services were terminated w.e.f. 31/5/1987 and it is denied that inspite of the order of the termination w.e.f. 31/5/1987, he was not relieved from that post. It was denied that he had continued on the said post till 20th September, 1989. It was also contended that he had not completed 240 days continuous service in the year immediately preceding his termination. The complaint was time barred and therefore, it was liable to be dismissed.

3. At the outset, it is to be noted that respondent no.1 had also filed an application for condonation of delay and the delay was condoned by order dated 26/3/1992 by the leaned Judge of the Labour Court. After that, the evidence of both the parties was recorded and the learned judge of the labour court passed the impugned judgment dated 9th April, 1996 holding that unfair labour practice was indulged in by the present petitioners, respondent no.1 had completed 240 days work and his services were terminated illegally w.e.f. 20th Sept. 1989. The learned judge accordingly directed the reinstatement of respondent no.1 with continuity of service with full back wages. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in Revision (ULP) No.194 of 1996. The revision application came to be dismissed by the Industrial Court by the impugned order dated 15/3/2001. Hence, this petition.

4. Heard Mr.Mokadam, learned counsel for the petitioners. None appeared for respondent no.1.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Labour Court has utterly failed to consider the evidence which was on record and came to wrong conclusions that respondent no.1 was continuously working from 2nd Sept. 1983 to 20th Sept. 1989. According to him, his appointment as a helper by order dated 2nd Sept. 1983 came to an end w.e.f. 31/5/1987 when his services as helper to the Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) were terminated. He contended t