SHAKUNTALA PRAVINBHAI SARAIA Vs. UNION CARBIDE INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Vinod Shetty, counsel tor the appellant.

(2.) The only statement that is made in the statement of claim is that the worker, in fact, has worked for more than 240 days. It is not even stated that she worked for more than 240 days in the preceding year. Rather, it is admitted in the statement of claim that the workman has not been given continuous work by the Company. The defence of the employer was that the worker was employed purely on temporary basis in connection with the temporary work/temporary increase in work and has not completed 240 days of continuous service in the preceding year.

(3.) That the burden lies on the workman to prove that she worked for 240 days continuously in the preceding year admits of no legal ambiguity. The worker miserably failed to establish that she had worked for 240 days in the preceding year.