Continuous service proof under industrial retrenchment law remains the workman's burden; adverse inference and regularisation are not automatic.

Section 25F protection applies only after the workman first proves 240 days of continuous service in the relevant period; mere pleadings, affidavits, or non-traverse are insufficient where the employer specifically denies the claim, and the initial burden remains on the workman. Non-production of attendance registers does not automatically justify adverse inference unless supported by independent evidence, and irrelevant surrounding circumstances cannot substitute for proof. An acquittal in criminal proceedings on benefit of doubt does not by itself create a right to reinstatement, and reinstatement for illegal retrenchment restores only original status without conferring regularisation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the workmen had proved continuous service of 240 days so as to attract Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and whether the burden of proof lay on the workmen or the employer; (ii) whether an adverse inference could be drawn from non-production of attendance registers and from the surrounding circumstances relied upon by the Tribunal; (iii) whether acquittal in the criminal cases and the alleged settlement entitled the workmen to reinstatement or regularisation.

Issue (i): Whether the workmen had proved continuous service of 240 days so as to attract Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and whether the burden of proof lay on the workmen or the employer.

Analysis: The statutory protection against retrenchment under Section 25F arises only after the workman establishes the foundational fact of having rendered 240 days of continuous service in the relevant period. Mere pleadings, affidavits, or non-traverse were held insufficient in the absence of cogent evidence. Since the employer had specifically denied the claim of continuous service, the initial burden remained on the workmen to prove the fact of continuous work. The Tribunal, therefore, misdirected itself in placing the onus on the employer.

Conclusion: The workmen had not proved the necessary continuous service, and the burden was wrongly shifted to the employer.

Issue (ii): Whether an adverse inference could be drawn from non-production of attendance registers and from the surrounding circumstances relied upon by the Tribunal.

Analysis: Non-production of attendance registers by itself did not justify an automatic adverse inference, particularly when the workmen adduced no independent evidence to support their own version. The Tribunal relied on representations, alleged silence in correspondence, and other circumstances that were not legally probative of 240 days' service. The finding that abandonment was not proved against the employer could not be converted into proof of the workmen's affirmative case. The Tribunal's conclusion was thus based on irrelevant considerations and no evidence.

Conclusion: The adverse inference was wrongly drawn and the circumstantial material was insufficient to establish the workmen's case.

Issue (iii): Whether acquittal in the criminal cases and the alleged settlement entitled the workmen to reinstatement or regularisation.

Analysis: An acquittal on benefit of doubt does not automatically bind the employer or confer a right to reinstatement. The nature of ticca mazdoor engagement was intermittent and did not confer a permanent status. Even where reinstatement is directed for non-compliance with Section 25F, the workmen regain only their original status and do not thereby become regular employees. Regularisation is not automatic merely because some period of service is shown or because of a subsequent settlement framework.

Conclusion: Neither the acquittal nor the settlement conferred an automatic right to reinstatement as regular employees or to regularisation.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal and the High Court had proceeded on a mistaken approach to burden of proof and evidentiary value, resulting in perverse findings. The award and the impugned judgments were unsustainable, and the employer was entitled to succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: In industrial adjudication, the workman must first prove continuous service necessary to invoke Section 25F, and reinstatement for illegal retrenchment restores only the original employment status without creating a right to regularisation; a criminal acquittal by itself does not compel reinstatement.

---