MAHESH RAMNIVAS Vs. VASANT DYING AND PRINTING WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Mr Dipak R Dave, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr Zubin Bharda, learned counsel for respondent No.1. This intra court Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgement dated 18.12.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.2752 of 2008 by which the claim of the appellant workman has been dismissed. The services of the appellant were orally terminated by the respondents.

(2.) WE have gone through the para Nos. 3 to 5 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has considered all the rival contentions of the parties and arrived at a conclusion that in absence of any evidence, claim of the appellant -petitioner could not be accepted.

(3.) IT has been held by the Apex Court in R.M. Yelatti v. Assistant Executive Engineer, 2006 1 SCC 106 that the final burden is on the workman to prove that he has worked with the respondent for 240 days in the preceding years. In the instant case, we do not find that final burden has been discharged by the workman. Therefore, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the courts below or by the learned Single Judge.