Supreme Court: Past Ad Hoc Service Counts for Pension, Not Seniority Against Direct Recruits  ||  SC: CPC Amendment Allowed When New Facts and Reliefs Directly Relate to Existing Dispute  ||  SC: Governing Law Clause Relevant to Determine Arbitral Seat When Two Venues Are Named  ||  Supreme Court: Section 161 CrPC Statements Can Be Considered at Cognizance Stage, Not at Trial  ||  Bombay High Court Directs Release of Protesters Held over Anti-ECI Agitations  ||  Kerala High Court Orders State to Pay Rs. 21,000 Post-Surgery Assistance to Transgender Person  ||  Madras High Court: DVAC Not Entitled to Blanket RTI Exemption in Corruption Cases  ||  Karnataka High Court Strikes Down Enhanced SC/ST Quota for Breaching 50% Reservation Cap  ||  Delhi HC: First-Come, First-Served Policy for Ramleela Ground Allotment is Unfair  ||  Kerala HC Upholds Automatic Revocation of Christian Wills on Marriage under S.69 Succession Act    

Sarita Tiwari Vs. Aastha Garments (Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:8898) - (High Court of Delhi) (11 Dec 2023)

Burden to prove that the workman was in continuous employment of 240 days with the management is on the workman herself/himself

MANU/DE/8275/2023

Labour and Industrial

Present petition assails award passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court. The Learned Labour Court vide the impugned award has rejected the Petitioner's claim against the respondent management for reinstatement with full back wages.

The Petitioner has initiated the present industrial dispute alleging violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which provides for conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen. A perusal of Section 25-F of the Act reveals that in order to claim the benefit of Section 25-F, the workman needs to prove that she has been in continuous service for not less than one year from the date of her termination. Section 25B of the Act stipulates that a person who has worked for a period of 240 days in the preceding year is deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year.

It is well-settled that the burden to prove that the workman was in continuous employment of 240 days with the management is on the workman herself. As the Petitioner is unable to prove that she was in continuous service of 240 days in the year preceding her date of termination, she cannot invoke the benefit of Section 25F of the Act.

It cannot be said that the findings of the Learned Labour Court suffer from any inherent illegality, jurisdictional error, or perversity, so as to justify interference by this Court, in exercise of the limited jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 in labour matters. The impugned award is, therefore, upheld. Petition dismissed.

Tags : AWARD   BENEFIT   PROVISION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved