Order

09/04/2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The challenge is made to the impugned award dated 08.06.20005 (Annex.11) whereby and wherein, the claim made by the petitioner herein, challenging the termination of the petitioner without compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947, was rejected.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was claiming to be in continuous employment of the respondent and he is meeting the criteria of 240 days so as to entitle him to comply the requirements of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. According to him, while terminating the services of the petitioner, the requirements of Section 25-F was not complied with, therefore, he was before the Labour Court.

4. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner was not in continuous service with the respondent Department, therefore, he is not meeting the criteria of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and there is no requirement to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

5. The petitioner before the Labour Court has produced a Xerox copy of the muster roll claiming that he has complied with the requirement of continuous service of 240 days. The petitioner also filed an application before the Labour Court seeking direction to the respondent to produce the muster roll for the month of September, 1988. The Labour Court has allowed the said application and directed the employer to produce such a muster roll. However, the muster roll for the month of September, 1988 could not be produced by the employer.

6. After appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Labour Court has rejected the claim set up by the petitioner on the basis that the Xerox copies of the muster roll could not be taken in evidence as they were not proved by the petitioner. Ultimately, the claim was rejected holding that the petitioner has not complied with the criteria of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act so as to claim 240 days continuous working with the employer before termination of his services.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Labour Court has committed an error in not drawing adverse inference based on the non-production of the muster roll for the month of September, 1988, as ordered by the learned Labour Court. It is also his submission that the learned Labour Court should have considered the muster rolls produced by the petitioner before it in the form of Xerox copies to prove the continuous working of the petitioner for 240 days with the respondent-employer prior to termination of his services.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-employer submitted that there is no evidence except the oral claim of the petitioner to substantiate his claim that he had worked with the employer for a period of 240 days as required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, preceding his termination. The respondent-employer has examined one of its employee to prove their case. According to the respondent-employer, the petitioner is not meeting the criteria of continuous working of 240 days.

9. As seen from the impugned award of the Labour Court, the oral claim/evidence of the petitioner was not supported by any other admissible evidence. The petitioner had relied upon the Xerox copies of the muster rolls but the same have not been taken in evidence as the muster rolls have not been proved. If the Xerox copies of the muster rolls are excluded in evidence, absolutely, there is no other evidence to substantiate the claim of the petitioner, except his oral claim made by the petitioner. The Labour Court having excluded the Xerox copies of the muster rolls has found that the petitioner is not meeting with the criteria of continuous working of 240 days with the employer so as to get the benefit as provided under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Even assuming that an adverse inference can be drawn based on non-prod