Sundays and paid holidays must be included when computing 240 days of continuous service under Section 25B.

The Respondent was engaged as a part-time daily wager for sweeping and cleaning at the Appellant-Bank’s Ashok Vihar and Rampura branches between 1997 and 1999.

The Appellant contended she worked only 42 days at one branch and 182 days at another intermittently.

Following the cessation of her engagement on 19.04.1999, a dispute was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT).

The CGIT held the termination illegal, finding she had completed 240 days of service by including Sundays and drawing an adverse inference against the Bank for non-production of records.

The Appellant challenged this via a Writ Petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 14.12.2018.

The Bank filed the present Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) challenging that dismissal.

1. Whether the Respondent falls within the definition of a "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2. Whether the Respondent completed 240 days of continuous service to qualify for protection against retrenchment under Section 25F of the Act.

3. Whether an adverse inference could be drawn against the Management for withholding attendance and wage records.

Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes (ID) Act, 1947, which defines "workman" broadly to include manual or unskilled labour regardless of wage-payment intervals.

Section 25F and Section 25B regarding the "continuous service" requirement of 240 days in the preceding twelve months.

The principle that "actually worked" under Section 25B includes Sundays and paid holidays.

While the initial burden of proof is on the workman, it shifts to the employer if they withhold the best available evidence in their custody.

The Court rejected the Bank’s argument that no employer-employee relationship existed, noting that the Respondent performed duties on the Bank’s premises, under its supervision, and for its benefit.

Regarding the 240-day requirement, the Court observed that the Bank’s own admission of 221 working days excluded Sundays; once included, the threshold was met.

The Court held that since the Respondent was an illiterate daily wager without access to formal appointment or termination letters, and she had deposed to her continuous service, the burden shifted to the Bank.

The Bank failed to produce original attendance registers and vouchers despite having custody of them.

Consequently, the Tribunal’s decision to draw an adverse inference was legally sound as the Bank withheld the "best evidence".

The Court affirmed that Sundays/holidays must be counted toward the 240-day period.

The Court dismissed the Appeal, finding no perversity in the findings of the Tribunal or the Single Judge.