Statutory protection against retrenchment requires the workman to establish completion of 240 days of continuous service.

The Petitioners were engaged as casual, daily-rated Mali/Beldars in the Horticulture Department of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD)

They alleged their services were terminated on September 26, 1990, without notice or assigned reasons after approximately four years of service

An industrial dispute was raised in 1993 and referred for adjudication in 1994

By an Award dated October 25, 2007, the Labour Court dismissed the Petitioners' claim for reinstatement, holding that they failed to establish an employer-employee relationship

The Respondent-Management maintained that the Petitioners were never employed and that relevant muster roll records had been destroyed under a 15-year record-retention policy

The Petitioners challenged this Award via a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution

1. Whether the impugned Award suffered from illegality, perversity, or material irregularity regarding the finding on the employer-employee relationship

2. Whether the Petitioners established "continuous service" of 240 days to entitle them to protection against illegal retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

The Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors or patent illegalities and does not extend to re-appreciating evidence as an appellate body, as established in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan

Regarding the employer-employee relationship, the Court relied on Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mahomed Haji Latif and R.M. Yellatti v. Assistant Executive Engineer, which permit drawing an adverse inference against a party that withholds the "best evidence" (e.g., muster rolls) in its possession

For retrenchment, Sections 25B and 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, mandate that a workman must prove "continuous service" by showing they worked at least 240 days in the 12 months preceding termination to claim retrenchment compensation

Per Manager, Reserve Bank of India v. S. Mani, the initial burden of proving 240 days of service lies strictly on the workman

The Court first addressed the employer-employee relationship, finding the Labour Court’s conclusion perverse

It held that since the Respondent admitted the existence of muster rolls during proceedings but later claimed they were destroyed without producing a formal destruction policy, the Labour Court should have drawn an adverse inference against the Management

The Court determined that the Petitioners had discharged their initial burden, shifting the onus to the Management, which failed to produce the records

However, on the second issue of "continuous service," the Court found the Petitioners' case deficient. Although the relationship was established, the Petitioners failed to specifically plead or provide oral/documentary evidence that they completed 240 days of work in the year preceding their termination

The Court noted that even in welfare legislation, it cannot substitute proof with presumption or grant relief on purely equitable grounds where statutory requirements under Section 25B are not met

However, the Court held that the termination was not illegal because the Petitioners failed to prove the jurisdictional requirement of 240 days of continuous service necessary to trigger the protections of Section 25F

Consequently, the Petitioners were not entitled to reinstatement or back wages

The Writ Petition was dismissed