Proof of 240 days service is presumed when employer withholds vital attendance and wage records.

The respondent was appointed as an Accounts Assistant on 17.04.1999 and regularized on 01.07.1999

Her services were terminated on 01.04.2000, allegedly without due process

The Labour Court partly allowed her reference (No. 530 of 2000), directing reinstatement with 50% back wages on 06.01.2017

The petitioner-employer, who had been impleaded during the proceedings but failed to participate, filed a restoration application under Rule 26(A) of the Industrial Dispute (Gujarat) Rules, 1966. This application was dismissed on 05.03.2022

The petitioner challenged both the original award and the dismissal of the restoration application, claiming they were proceeded against ex-parte and that the workman failed to prove 240 days of continuous service

1. Whether the petitioner established "sufficient cause" for non-appearance to justify setting aside the award under Rule 26(A) of the Industrial Dispute (Gujarat) Rules, 1966?

2. Whether the workman met the mandatory requirement of 240 days of continuous service under Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

3. Whether the termination was in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which mandates the provision of notice and retrenchment compensation for workmen in continuous service for one year

Section 25-B regarding the "240 days" rule, emphasizing that while the initial burden is on the workman, the employer’s failure to produce best evidence (attendance records/pay slips) allows the Court to draw an adverse inference

Rule 26(A) of the Industrial Dispute (Gujarat) Rules, 1966, was applied regarding the setting aside of ex-parte awards, requiring the applicant to demonstrate "sufficient cause" for absence

The Court rejected the petitioner’s claim of ex-parte unfairness, noting that the petitioner and its predecessor were served and given multiple opportunities to lead evidence between 2007 and 2016

The excuse that counsel was attending a son’s wedding was dismissed because the right to lead evidence had already been closed months prior to the wedding

Regarding the 240-day requirement, the Court held that since the workman stated on oath she completed the period and the employer (who held the master records) failed to lead contrary evidence or cross-examine on this point, the burden of proof was discharged

The Court found the termination was a clear retrenchment without the mandatory notice or pay required under Section 25-F, rendering the termination illegal

It directed the petitioner to pay 50% back wages from the date of termination until the date of retirement, plus an additional lump-sum compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. The petition was dismissed, and rule discharged