Continuous service burden in labour claims: adverse inference cannot replace proof of 240 days' service for reinstatement.

A claim to permanency, retrenchment relief or reinstatement based on 240 days' continuous service requires the workmen to first discharge the initial burden of proving such service. On the facts, the engagement was daily wage, intermittent and project-based, and the muster rolls produced did not establish continuous employment for the relevant period. Adverse inference from non-production of later muster rolls could not, by itself, substitute for proof of continuous service. The Supreme Court held that the reinstatement order was unsustainable and restored the Labour Court's rejection of the claim.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents established continuous service of 240 days so as to claim permanency or treat their disengagement as retrenchment, and whether the Industrial Court and the High Court were justified in drawing an adverse inference from non-production of some muster rolls and ordering reinstatement.

Analysis: The respondents were engaged on daily wages for digging pits for erection of electric poles in connection with a project of drawing electric lines. The material on record showed that the work was intermittent and project-based, and the muster rolls produced did not establish continuous employment for 240 days in any year. In such circumstances, the initial burden of proving continuous service lay on the respondents and remained undischarged. Adverse inference for non-production of later muster rolls could not be the sole basis for granting relief, particularly when the respondents had not first proved continuous service for the relevant period.

Conclusion: The respondents were not entitled to claim permanency, reinstatement, or retrenchment relief on the basis of an adverse inference; the order of reinstatement was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appellate court restored the Labour Court's rejection of the workmen's claim and set aside the contrary findings of the Industrial Court and the High Court.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim to continuity of service and consequential reinstatement cannot rest solely on adverse inference from non-production of records when the claimant has not first discharged the initial burden of proving continuous service on the facts.

---