https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157883 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. en-us Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Jun 2014 14:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157883 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157883