https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283976 In industrial adjudication, the workman must prove completion of 240 days of service in the preceding twelve months to invoke the protection of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court held that the basic burden of proving foundational facts remained on the claimant, and the workman failed to produce sufficient evidence, including wage or muster records, to establish continuous service. It further held that adverse inference from non-production of employer records is discretionary and cannot automatically replace the claimant's evidentiary burden or justify interference with a reasoned tribunal award. The Industrial Tribunal's award was restored and reinstatement with back wages was set aside. en-us Mon, 06 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Jun 2024 10:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283976 In industrial adjudication, the workman must prove completion of 240 days of service in the preceding twelve months to invoke the protection of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court held that the basic burden of proving foundational facts remained on the claimant, and the workman failed to produce sufficient evidence, including wage or muster records, to establish continuous service. It further held that adverse inference from non-production of employer records is discretionary and cannot automatically replace the claimant's evidentiary burden or justify interference with a reasoned tribunal award. The Industrial Tribunal's award was restored and reinstatement with back wages was set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 06 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283976