Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal, Holds Investigating Officer Cannot Create Evidence  ||  Supreme Court: NDPS Prosecution Cannot Be Quashed Solely Over Co-Accused’s Disclosure  ||  SC: Tax Classification Depends on Goods' Form at Sale, not their End Use  ||  Delhi High Court: No Material Showing Delhi Police Compromised the 2020 Riots Probe  ||  Madras HC Suggests Mandatory Attachment of Properties Suspected to Be Proceeds of Corruption  ||  P&H High Court: Demolition After Lawyer Flagged Corruption Appears Aimed at Silencing Him  ||  Calcutta High Court: Contempt Proceedings Cannot Be Used to Challenge Orders or Attack Judges  ||  Orissa High Court: Marriage Need Not Be Preserved When the Relationship Has Substantially Eroded  ||  SC: CIRP Can Continue Despite Fraudulent Insolvency Plea That Triggered It  ||  Delhi HC: Senior Citizen May Seek Eviction of Daughter-in-Law for Ill-Treatment    

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