THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 35934 OF 1998 DATE: 25-1-2008 Between : M/s G.K.S. Kalsi Constructions, rep. by its partner Sri Charajit Singh Visakhapatnam …. Petitioner And 1. Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited, rep. by its Addl. General Manager Visakahaptnam and 6 other .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 35934 OF 1998 ORDER: Aggrieved by the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam in I.D.No.80 of 1994 dated 5.2.1998, the present writ petition is filed. The 5th respondent filed application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act contending that despite having worked with the 2nd respondent from 28.4.1992 to 1.1.1993 and despite his having completed 240 days of service, his services were illegally terminated contrary to Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. In its counter affidavit filed before the Industrial Tribunal, the petitioner herein contended that the 5th respondent in fact worked only for six months from June 1992 to 24.12.1992 and that he abandoned service from that date. While the 5th respondent – workman did not adduce any evidence before the Industrial Tribunal nor did he mark any documents as exhibits, on behalf of the petitioner herein one Sri B.V.N.S.Eswar Rao was examined and Exs.M.1 to M.7 were marked as exhibits. Despite no evidence being adduced on behalf of the workman, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that he had worked from 28.4.1992 to 1.1.1993 and that he satisfied the requirement of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act and since his services are terminated in violation of Section 25-F, he was entitled for reinstatement with full back wages and all consequential benefits and for costs of Rs.500/-. Sri V. Rajagopal Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that since the burden to establish that he had put in more than 240 days of service is on the 5th respondent workman and in as much as he had neither adduced oral nor documentary evidence, the Industrial Tribunal ought to have dismissed the case. It is well settled by a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas[1], Range Forest Officer v S.T.Hadimani[2] and other authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court that the onus is the workman to adduce evidence to establish that he had completed 240 days in the 12 months preceding his termination. In this case the 5th respondent – workman did not adduce any evidence. The Labour Court had acted without justification, in shifting the onus on the employer and despite evidence being let in by the petitioner to show that the 5th respondent had worked only for 6 months, to reject the evidence, in holding that that the 5th respondent workman had in fact worked from 28.4.11992 to 1.1.1993. The findings of the Industrial Tribunal in this regard are based on no evidence and are perverse. In any event, in the absence any evidence being let in by the workman, his contention that he had worked for 240 days is a mere plea and cannot form the basis of passing an award directing his reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service. The impugned award is quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ____________ 25-1-2008 asp [1] (2004) 8 SCC 195 [2] 2002(1) LLJ 1053