AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 4681 ::2004 AIR SCW 5184 ::2004 Lab LR 1022 ::(2004) 23 IndLD 212 ::2004 (3) CurLR 543 ::2004 (2) UJ (SC) 1404 ::(2004) 103 FacLR 187 ::2004 SCC (L&S) 1062 ::(2004) 7 Scale 437 ::2005 (1) ServLJ 95 SC ::(2005) 1 ServLJ 95 ::2004 (8) SCC 195 ::2004 (7) ACE 89 ::2004 (3) BLJ 599 ::2004 (4) All WC 2847 ::2004 (4) LabLN 785 ::2004 (4) JLJR 202 ::2004 (4) RajLW 553 ::(2004) 4 Raj LW 552 ::2004 (4) SCT 211 ::2004 (5) ServLR 816 ::(2004) 107 FJR 248 ::2004 (5) SLT 566 ::2004 (6) Supreme 456 ::(2004) 23 AllIndCas 690 (SC) ::(2004) 7 JT 248 (SC) ::2004 (9) SRJ 36

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Punjab and Haryana)

Hon'ble Judge(s): N. Santosh Hegde, Satya Brata Sinha , JJ

Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947) , S.25F— Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.101, S.102, S.103, S.104, S.114(f)— Retrenchment - Conditions precedent for - Non-compliance with, alleged - General principles of Evidence Act apply to industrial adjudication - Burden of proof lies on workmen/respondent to show that he had worked for 240 days in preceding twelve months prior to his alleged retrenchment - Muster Roll not called upon by workman from office/Municipal Corporation before Tribunal but produced before Supreme Court - Workman also not able to show terms and conditions of his offer of appointment and remuneration received by him, for working during aforesaid period - No witness examined by workman in support of his case - Merely because appellant-Municipal Corporation did not produce best evidence which was in its possession - No adverse inference can be drawn against appellant/Municipal Corporation - Failure of respondent/workman to show that he had completed 240 days of working in year - Retrenchment, not illegal. C.W.P. No. 624 of 2000, D/- 3-5-2001 (Punj and Har), Reversed.Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohamed Haji Latif, AIR 1968 SC 1413, Disting. (Para 13 14 15 19 21) .....