The burden of proving 240 days of continuous service lies with the employee under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, affecting retrenchment rights.

Order :

REKHA BORANA, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of award dated 29.01.2025 (Annexure-4) passed by the learned Industrial Disputes Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bikaner in Labour Case No.21/2015 (CIS No.20/2015).

2. Learned Labour Court while deciding the claim petition as preferred by the petitioner-claimant recorded a specific finding to the effect that the petitioner-claimant failed to prove that he completed 240 days of service in one calendar year preceding his alleged date of retrenchment i.e. 31.08.2012.

3. After perusing the documents as placed on record, this Court is in consonance with the finding as recorded by the learned Labour Court. The pleadings as made by the claimant in his statement of claim were as under:

^^10- ;g gS fd deZpkjh dh mifLFkfr izFke fu;qfDr fnukad 12-3-97 ls ekg Qjojh 2006 rd eLVªksy ij yxkrs Fks eLVªksy ds vk/kkj ij gh U;wure etnwjh dk Hkqxrku djus Fks fdUrq ekg ekpZ 2006 ls deZpkjh dh lsok 'krksZ esa cnyko dj osru dk Hkqxrku Bsdsnkj ds ek/;e ls djok;k tkus yxk fdUrq deZpkjh ds dk;Z iz—fr esa fdlh izdkj dk cnyko ugha fd;k x;kA fu;qfDr ls lsok lekfIr rd lgk;d vfHk;Urk ds fu;U=.k esa gh ok;jeSu in ij yxkrkj dk;Z fd;k gSA deZpkjh dks le;≤ ij dk;Z vuqHko izek.k i= Hkh fn;s x;s gSA 

11- ;g gS fd deZpkjh dh Hkfo"; fuf/k jkf'k dh dVkSrh Hkh osru esa ls dh tkrh Fkh fdUrq deZpkjh dks Hkfo"; fuf/k dksM uEcj ugha crk;k x;kA 

12- ;g gS fd deZpkjh dh lsok vpkud fcuk fdlh dkj.k ,oa vk/kkj ds lekIr dj fn;s tkus ls deZpkjh o deZpkjh dk ifjokj ?kksj vkfFkZd o ekufld ladV esa Qal x;k gSA deZpkjh lsok lekfIr frfFk ls csjkstxkj gSA^^

4. A bare perusal of the above pleadings reflect that it was not even the case of the claimant that he worked till the year 2012. Further, not a whisper has been made as to for how many days he worked during the year 2011-12 or before the date of his alleged retrenchment i.e. 31.08.2012. Even, no document, whatsoever, has been placed on record to substantiate the said fact.

5. This Court is of the clear opinion that the findings as recorded by the learned Tribunal being totally in consonance with law does not deserve any interference.

6. When the claimant-workman failed to prove 240 days of work in one calendar year preceding the date of retrenchment, as is the settled position of law, no breach of provisions of Section 25 F , G or H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1947’) is made out.

7. The Delhi Court, in its recent judgment in Ranjeet Vs. Delhi Jal Board ; 2024 SCC OnLine Del 136 , while relying upon the earlier judgments on the issue, held as under:

“36. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Essen Deinki v. Rajiv Kumar , 2003 SCC (L&S) 13 observed that the responsibility to prove 240 days of work rests with the employee in case there is any dispute regarding this fact. The relevant portion of the said judgment has been reproduced herein:

“16. The proof of working for 240 days is stated to be on the employee in the event of any denial of such a factum and it is on this score that this Court in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani, was pleased to state as below:

“In our opinion the Tribunal was right in placing the onus on the management without first determining on the basis of cogent evidence that the respondent had worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding his termination. It was the case of the claimant that he had worked but this claim was denied by the appellant. It was then for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination. Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any court or tribunal to