1 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W)NO.960/2007 Chief Post Master, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur Vs. Shankar Lal Sharma & Anr. DATE OF ORDER :: 25-01-2008 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma for the appellant. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. A reference was made by the appropriate government in terms of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short, 'the ID Act') : “Whether the action of the Chief Post Master General, Rajasthan Circle is legal and justified in terminating the services of the workman Shri Shankar Lal Sharma S/o Shri Chouthmal Sharma w.e.f.19.5.1995. If not to what relief the workman is entitled to ?” On the basis of the reference, the Industrial Tribunal proceeded with the matter and on basis of the affidavit filed by the parties held that the concerned workman had since worked continuously for 286 days, the provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act were breached. Accordingly, it directed for reinstatement of the concerned workman with 50% back wages. 2 The matter ultimately was challenged by the Postal Department before this Court in writ jurisdiction. The writ application was however disposed of holding that the authorities had not complied with the provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act in terminating his services as he had continuously worked for more than 240 days and accordingly, it directed for reinstatement of the concerned workman within 30 days of receipt of the order. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the workman concerned was engaged on daily rated basis and he had not proved his case before the Tribunal showing that he had continuously worked for more than 240 days. To test this statement of the learned counsel for the appellant, it would be relevant to mention here that according to the affidavit filed by the appellant, the workman concerned was disengaged with effect from 19.5.1995 but has nowhere mentioned in the affidavit as to the date of his engagement on daily rated basis. Rather it would appear from the materials on record that the workman was engaged sometime in April 1994 and continued to work till 18.5.1995, the period, therefore, obviously comes to 286 days, that is, more than the period prescribed for termination under Section 25F of the ID Act. On the face of the claim of the workman, it was incumbent upon the establishment of the workman to prove that he had not continuously worked for more than 240 days, 3 particularly in reference to the date of engagement of the workman which is not in dispute nor payment of wages is disputed. The postal department, for making such payments, must have been maintaining record right from the date of payment which would have been the substantive piece of evidence to be produced before the Tribunal to show that the concerned workman had not actually worked for more than 240 days. In view of these aspects of the matter and the finding recorded by the Industrial Tribunal and the learned Single Judge of this Court, we hardly find any scope for interference. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. [R.M.LODHA],J. [NARAYAN ROY],CJ. Skant/-