The burden of proof is on the workman to establish that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding his termination, as required by Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

SANJAY YADAV, J.

1. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.

2. Award-dated 12.5.2016 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur (referred to as 'CGIT') has been assailed by the petitioner/management; whereby, the CGIT, in seisin with the industrial dispute as to whether the action of management of the petitioner in terminating the services of Shri Shantilal Guldekar (hereinafter referred to as 'workman') w.e.f. 28.7.2002 is legal and justified, has held it to be unjustified and illegal, and directed for reinstatement of workman with full back wages. Evidently, the CGIT found fault with the termination as the same was without following the stipulation contained under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 1947 Act').

3. The CGIT as is evident from the findings has taken note of documents (Exhibit W-3 and W-4) which relate to Payment of Bonus to arrive at a finding as to the working days of the workman that he worked for 37 days in 1991-92, 52 days in 1994-95, 120 days in 1996 and 143 days in 1997. The alleged termination was on 28.7.2002. The dispute was referred as per order-dated 9.10.2006. The CGIT drew adverse inference for the period from 1997 to 2002 that the Management did not explain as to what happened to the documents about payment of wages to the workman during 12 months preceding termination of service and construed that the workman has worked for more than 240 days preceding 12 calendar months from the date of his termination. Paragraph 10 of the Award contained such finding :-

"10. .. Therefore, circumstances justified adverse inference against management that management would have produced payment vouchers about working of 1st party, it would have supported claim of workman that he completed 240 days continuous service preceding 12 months of his termination"

4. Petitioner takes exception to this finding. It is urged that the CGIT has glossed over the fact on record that workman was engaged by the Branch Manager, Khandwa Branch which comes under the Zonal Office, Indore, intermittently as casual worker and never attained minimum employment days provided under Section 25B of 1947 Act. It is urged that the workman sought relief against Zonal Office at Bhopal under whom he was never engaged. It is further contended that it was incumbent upon the workman to have established on the basis of the cogent material that he has continuously worked till his services were dispensed with on 28.7.2002. Instead, it is urged that he could only establish of having intermittently worked for 37 days in 1991-92, 52 days in 1994-95, 120 days in 1996, 143 days in 1997; thereafter the workman could not establish of being engaged as would result in termination of his service on 28.7.2002. It is contended that the CGIT grossly erred in shifting the burden on the petitioner-management to prove that the that the workman did not work for more than 240 days. It is further contended that as the management had categorically denied that the workman was intermittently engaged and was not engaged on regular basis nor even he had been continuously engaged for more than 240 days at a stretch the CGIT is not justified in holding that in reply to application for production of vouchers, the management having denied the same cannot be construed nor presumed that he was engaged and was paid through vouchers which is not produced. It is urged that present is a case where for the period for which the workman worked he produced the vouchers and for the period for which he has not worked, no payments are made or muster roll maintained. It is contended that the CGIT has misconstrued entire evidence on record resulting in passing of Award which otherwise contrary to the evidence on record and deserves to be set aside.

5. Countering the submissions, respondent No. 1 supports the Award. It is urged that the same is based on the proper appreciation of entire material on