What is the burden of proof to establish 240 days of continuous work under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Section 25F) in retrenchment cases? What evidence is required to prove continuous service for 240 days if there is no letter of appointment or termination, and how should muster rolls be treated? What is the legal effect of failing to produce full muster rolls or relying on an affidavit in establishing 240 days of continuous service?

Key Points: - The burden of proof to show 240 days of continuous work lies on the claimant/workman and is discharged by cogent oral and documentary evidence when he testifies (!) . - In daily-wage retrenchment cases, absence of appointment/termination letters requires production of muster rolls, wage registers, and related records; merely affidavits are not sufficient to prove 240 days (certificates like Ex. W1 can be decisive if properly proved) (!) (!) (!) . - The court can draw adverse inferences or rely on missing records depending on the facts, but cannot solely base decisions on non-production of muster rolls without specific pleas; the decision must rest on cogent evidence presented (!) (!) . - The Irrigation department being an industry under 2(j) is a matter of factual determination; the burden remains on proving continuous service for 240 days (!) (!) . - The decision emphasizes the need for proper government record-keeping for daily wagers to certify days worked to avoid disputes (!) .

What is the burden of proof to establish 240 days of continuous work under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Section 25F) in retrenchment cases?

What evidence is required to prove continuous service for 240 days if there is no letter of appointment or termination, and how should muster rolls be treated?

What is the legal effect of failing to produce full muster rolls or relying on an affidavit in establishing 240 days of continuous service?