Proof of 240 days' continuous service must rest on cogent evidence; an unsupported affidavit is insufficient for relief.

A workman claiming completion of 240 days' continuous service must prove that fact with cogent evidence once the employer denies it. A self-serving affidavit, unsupported by wage records, appointment records or proof of payment for the relevant period, is insufficient to discharge that burden. On that basis, the finding of continuous service could not stand, and the retrenchment-related relief granted by the Labour Court was set aside. The challenge to the award succeeded because the workman had not established the factual foundation required for relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the workman had proved that he had worked for 240 days in the year preceding termination and, if not, whether the award directing relief could stand.

Analysis: The finding that the workman had completed 240 days of service was not based on cogent evidence. Once the employer denied the claim, the burden lay on the workman to establish continuous service by reliable material. A self-serving affidavit, without supporting wage records, appointment records, or proof of payment for the relevant period, was insufficient to discharge that burden.

Conclusion: The workman had not proved completion of 240 days' service, and the award was liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the award succeeded, and the relief granted by the Labour Court did not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: A workman asserting completion of 240 days of service must prove it by cogent evidence, and a mere affidavit without supporting records is not enough to establish entitlement to retrenchment-related relief.

---