To claim protection under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the burden of proof lies on the workman to establish continuous service of 240 days in the twelve months preceding termination through cogent documentary evidence.

Order on Board

1. The workman has filed this petition challenging the award dated 14.09.2018 passed by the learned Labour Court in Case No. 19/ I.D. Act/Ref./2013, whereby the reference has been answered in negative and the statement of claim has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner/workman was engaged with the respondent in the year 1984 and his services were discontinued in the year 1996, thereafter, the petitioner raised industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer, Janjgir-Champa and Competent Government made a reference before the learned Labour Court framing following question of determination:–

“As to whether the termination of Ghanar @ Ghanaram Kashyap S/o. Late Badri prasad kashyap is legal and proper? And what direction should be issued to the respondent in this regard.”

3. The workman, in the statement of claim, pleaded that he was engaged as a daily-rated employee in the year 1984 and his services were discontinued in the month January, 1996. It was further pleaded that he worked continuously more than 240 days in a calender year; further, he continuously worked from 1984 to 1996, but his services were discontinued without complying with the provisions contained in Sections 25F and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

4. The respondent No.2 filed its reply and denied the averments made in the claim statement. The petitioner examined himself and exhibited documents Exhibits P-1 to P-53 to establish that he had worked continuously from 1984 till 1996.

5. The learned Labour Court dismissed the statement of claim on the ground that the petitioner was required to establish the fact that he worked for 240 days continuously in a calendar year.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner/workman adduced documentary as well as oral evidence to substantiate that he had worked for 240 days in a calendar year and he continuously worked from 1984 to January, 1996, therefore, the learned Labour Court committed an error of law while dismissing the statement of claim.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Saini, Dy. G.A. appearing for the State would submit that the petitioner failed to substantiate that he worked for 240 days in a calender year; thus, the learned Labour Court has rightly dismissed the claim.

8. Heard.

9. Earlier, writ petitions (WPL No.151 of 2014 along with connected matters) were filed and the matter was remitted back to the learned Labour Court, and the following observations were made in paragraph 11:

“(11) In view of the above findings recorded by the Labour Court, it is clear that no specific finding has been recorded to establish that the employee concerned had, in fact, completed 240 days in the last preceding 12-month period prior to the date of termination. The Labour Court has merely recorded a finding that the termination of the workman falls within the definition of retrenchment and that the mandatory provisions relating to retrenchment were not followed, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The Labour Court ought to have recorded a specific finding that the workman had worked continuously for 240 days in a year so as to entitle him to the benefits under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Krishna Jal Nigam (supra). Thus, I deem it appropriate to remit the matter back to the Labour Court to consider it afresh. The Labour Court shall