Failure to produce employment records despite court orders creates adverse inference regarding 240-day service compliance.

The respondent-workman was engaged as a Rojamdar (daily-rated worker) by the petitioner-State from May 1, 2008.

The workman alleged that his services were orally terminated on February 28, 2014, in violation of statutory procedures under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The petitioner-State contended that the workman had not completed 240 days of continuous service in the preceding year and had voluntarily abandoned his duties.

The Labour Court, Ahmedabad, in Reference (LCA) No. 478 of 2016, ruled in favor of the workman, directing reinstatement with 20% back wages.

The State challenged this award via the present Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

1. Whether the workman had completed 240 days of continuous service in the 12 months preceding his termination to qualify for protection under the Industrial Disputes Act.

2. Whether the termination of the workman's services by the petitioner was legal and complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which mandates that no workman employed in an industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year shall be retrenched until they have been given one month’s notice (or wages in lieu thereof) and retrenchment compensation.

Section 25B of the Act, which defines "continuous service" and the 240-day requirement.

Article 227 of the Constitution, which restricts the High Court from re-appreciating evidence unless the lower court's findings are perverse or contrary to law.

The Court observed that while the petitioner claimed the workman failed to complete 240 days of service, the petitioner failed to produce original attendance sheets and salary statements despite a specific order from the Labour Court.

Consequently, the Labour Court correctly relied on the workman's evidence (Mark 8/1), which showed he worked over 240 days annually from 2008 to 2013.

Since the workman established continuous service under Section 25B, the burden shifted to the petitioner to prove the termination was legal.

The Court found no evidence of "voluntary abandonment" by the workman, noting the State failed to issue any correspondence or notice regarding his absence.

Because the State admitted to not providing notice pay or following the mandatory retrenchment procedure, the oral termination was deemed void ab initio for flouting Section 25F.

The High Court dismissed the petition, confirming the Labour Court’s award of reinstatement with 20% back wages and discharged the Rule.