ORDER Leave granted. 2. In the instant case, dispute was referred to the Labour Court that the respondent had worked for 240 days and his service had been terminated without paying him any retrenchment compensation. The appellant herein did not accept this and contended that the respondent had not worked for 240 days. The Tribunal vide its award dated 10th August, 1998, came to the conclusion that the service had been terminated without giving retrenchment compensation. In arriving at the conclusion that the respondent had worked for 240 days, the Tribunal stated that the burden was on the Management to show that there was justification in termination of the service and that the affidavit of the workman was sufficient to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a year. 3. For the view we are taking, it is not necessary to go into the question as to whether the appellant is an "industry" or not, though reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in State of Gujarat vs. Pratam Singh Narsinh Parmar [JT 2001(3) SC 326]. In our opinion the Tribunal was not right in placing the onus on the Management without first determining on the basis of cogent evidence that the respondent had worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding his termination. It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked but this claim was denied by the appellant. It was then for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination. Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had, in fact, worked for 240 days in a year. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement for this period was produced by the workman. On this ground alone, the award is liable to be set aside. However, Mr. Hegde appearing for the Department states that the State is really interested in getting the law settled and the respondent will be given an employment on compassionate grounds on the same terms as he was allegedly engaged prior to his termination, within two months from today. 4. However, Mr. Hegde appearing for the Department states that the State is really interested in getting the law settled and the respondent will be given an employment on compassionate grounds on the same terms as he was allegedly engaged prior to his termination, within two months from today. 4. The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Appeal disposed of accordingly. ************** Parallel Citations of other Journals : Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani, 2002(2) Supreme 58 ; 2002(2) JT 238 : 2002(2) SLR 401 : 2002 (100) FJR 397 : (2002) 3 SCC 25 : 2002 LLR 339 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 367 : 2002 (93) FLR 179 : 2002(1) LLJ 1053 : 2002() SCSLJ 281 : AIR 2002 SC 1147 ; 2002 LIC 987 : 2002(2) LLN 391 : 2002(2) SLJ 316 : 2002(94) FLR 622. 00031 00032