The burden of proof lies with the claimant to establish continuous employment and violation of labor laws, and mere non-production of documents by the employer may not suffice to prove the claim.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J.

1. By the present petition, the Petitioner lays a challenge to the award dated 08.07.2003 passed by the Labour Court-I, Karkardooma, Delhi in I.D. No. 308/98 titled as "The management of M/s. Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital Vs. Its workman Smt. Santosh Devi" ("Impugned Award"). Vide the Impugned Award dated 08.07.2003, the learned Labour Court was pleased to answer the reference in favour of the Respondent/Management and against the Petitioner/Workman.

2. It is the case of the Petitioner/Workman that she was engaged by the Respondent/Management on muster roll as a Safai Karamchari w.e.f 17.12.1988. Thereafter, the service of the Petitioner/Workman was terminated w.e.f. 17.04.1993 without assigning any valid reason thereof. After 4 years of the alleged termination, on 31.12.1997, the Petitioner/Workman through her Union issued a legal demand notice to the Respondent/Management. Subsequently on 10.06.1998, the Petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer.

3. On failure of the conciliation proceedings, the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi vide Notification dated 20.08.1998 referred the dispute to the learned Labour Court for adjudication under Section 10(I)(C) & 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "I.D. Act") with the following reference:

"Whether the services of Smt. Santosh Devi have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, and if so, to what relief is she entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"

4. The Petitioner filed Statement of Claim before the learned Labour Court alleging violation of 25F, G & H of the I.D. Act read with Rules 76, 77 and 78 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules").

5. The Respondent/Management filed their Written Statement before the learned Labour Court denying that the Petitioner/Workman worked with them for a period of 240 days in a calendar year. It is the case of the Respondent/Management that the Petitioner/Workman worked in 13 different spells on muster roll w.e.f 01.01.1990 without completing 240 days in a calendar year. It is the case of the Respondent/Management that since the services of the Petitioner/Workman was not terminated or retrenched, there is no violation of 25F, G & H of the I.D. Act.

6. Both the parties led their evidence to substantiate their respective cases. The Petitioner examined herself as WW-1. On behalf of the Respondent/Management, Dr. B.R Chandra, Additional MS, GTB Hospital was examined as MW-1.

7. After examining the evidence on behalf of both the parties, the learned Labour Court was pleased to answer the reference in favour of the Respondent/Management and against the Petitioner/Workman. The learned Labour Court inter alia held that the Petitioner/Workman failed to prove that her services were terminated illegally or unjustifiably or the management acted in violation of Section 25F, G & H of the I.D. Act read with Rules 76, 77 and 78 of the and Section 30 of the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954.

8. The present Writ Petition is preferred by the Petitioner challenging the Impugned Award.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

9. Ms. Meghna De, learned counsel for the Petitioner/Workman submitted that the Respondent/Management resorted to unfair labour practice of engaging workmen, such as the Petitioner/Workman herein, against jobs of permanent nature but without conferring upon them the benefits of permanency. She submitted that though the Petitioner/Workman was working against a job of permanent nature, the Respondent/Management had deliberately recruited her on a muster roll.

10. It was stated by learned counsel that the Petitioner/Workman was working with the Respondent/Management from 17.12.1988 to 17.04.1993 except for the days she was not allowed to perform her duties. It was asserted that the Impugned Award suffers from infirmity on the ground that the Respond