Workman Must Prove Employment and 240 Days: Raj HC

Burden on Workman to Prove Employment and 240 Days: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Labour Court Award

Published: 22 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition against a Labour Court award holding that no employer–employee relationship existed between a claimed Computer Operator and the Library Officer of Govind Ballabh Pant Krishi Bhawan, Jaipur (paras 1, 24). With no appointment letter, attendance register or retrenchment order, an isolated payment document and an experience-cum-attendance certificate did not discharge the workman's burden of proving employment and 240 days' service needed to invoke Section 25-F (paras 17-20).

Key holdings

The initial onus of proving 240 days' continuous service in the 12 months before termination lies on the workman (para 20).

An isolated or stray payment, without corroborative evidence or pleading, does not establish an employer–employee relationship (para 18).

Without an appointment letter, attendance register or termination order, the Labour Court could hold that no relationship existed (para 17).

Writ review of a Labour Court award is limited to perverse findings, no evidence or jurisdictional error (para 15).

Rulings on dismissal without inquiry, or on compensation for a proved Section 25-F breach, do not help a claimant who cannot prove employment (paras 21-22).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

On a reference by the State Government, the petitioner claimed before Labour Court No. 1, Jaipur (L.C.R. No. 82/2009) that the Library Officer engaged him as a Computer Operator on 01.01.1999 and later as Library Assistant-cum-Computer Operator, that his monthly pay rose from Rs 1,800 to Rs 3,000, and that he was retrenched from 21.07.2007 without notice or compensation, in breach of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (para 2). The employer denied ever appointing him (para 3). He examined himself and filed 15 documents; the employer examined one witness (para 4). By award dated 02.04.2013 the Labour Court held that no employer–employee relationship existed, and he challenged it in writ (paras 1, 5).

Court's Findings

A writ court does not sit in appeal over a Labour Court's findings of fact; it interferes only where they are perverse, based on no evidence or disclose a jurisdictional error, following International Airport Authority of India v. International Air Cargo Workers Union (para 15). The Court relied on its order of 29.09.2026 in Ram Kishore, which held that without the foundational fact of engagement the 240-day and Section 25-F questions do not arise, and which quoted R.M. Yellatti: the claimant must prove 240 days' work, and self-serving statements do not suffice (para 16). Per the award, the petitioner admitted producing no appointment letter, attendance register or retrenchment order (para 17). Exhibit W-3, recording a payment of Rs 15,873, was an isolated payment without corroboration or pleading and showed neither salary nor the relationship (para 18). The experience-cum-attendance certificate dated 24.01.2004 did not show 240 days' work in the 12 months before termination, so the workman's burden was not discharged and no breach of Section 25-F was made out (paras 19-20). Deepali Gundu Surwase concerned the absence of an inquiry and natural justice, and Amit Kumar Dubey the compensation due once Section 25-F is breached; both were distinguished (paras 21-22).

Legal Principle

A workman alleging illegal retrenchment must prove that he was employed and that he worked 240 days in the 12 months before termination. An isolated, uncorroborated payment or an experience certificate does not discharge that burden, and a writ court will not disturb a Labour Court's finding of fact unless it is perverse or rests on no evidence (paras 15-20).

Precedents Relied Upon

International Airport Authority of India v. International Air Cargo Workers Union (2009) 13 SCC 374
Applied Discussed at ¶ 15
A writ court does not reappreciate evidence or sit in appeal over an industrial adjudicator's findings of fact; it may interfere only with findings on no or irrelevant evidence. Quoted to state the limited scope of review.
Ram Kishore v. Sachive, Rajasthan Awasan Mandal & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13273/2016
Applied Discussed at ¶ 16
Relied on as a similar case (order dated 29.09.2026): without proof of engagement, the 240-day and Section 25-F questions do not arise, and the burden of proof lies on the workman.
Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak & Ors. (2013) 10 SCC 324
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 21
Cited by the petitioner; distinguished as a case on the absence of an inquiry and breach of natural justice.

View all precedents (4)

Amit Kumar Dubey v. M.P.P.K.V.V. Co. Ltd. & Anr. SLP (Civil) No.20902/2024 dated 29.01.2025
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 22
Cited by the petitioner; it concerns compensation once a breach of Section 25-F is established, which was not shown here.