JUDGMENT : G.S. Sandhawalia, J. C.M. No. 4333 of 2014 1. Application for placing on record Annexures P-7 to P-9 and for exemption from filing certified copy of Annexures P-7 to P-9 is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The said Annexures are taken on record. CWP No. 4315 of 2014 2. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 08.02.2013 (Annexure P-4) whereby, the Labour Court, Panipat decided the reference against the petitioner-workman on the ground that he failed to prove the fact that he had worked for 240 days preceding his termination on 30.06.2004. 3. A perusal of the paper book would go on to show that a demand Gupta Shivani notice dated 22.03.2007 was served on the respondent-department that the petitioner was working as Beldar from 01.01.1984 to 30.06.2004 and the services were terminated w.e.f. 01.07.2004 and the workman was drawing Rs. 2,600/- per month. It was submitted that 240 days have been completed and there was violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act'). 4. The relationship of employer and employee itself was denied in the reply to the demand notice and resultantly, the matter was referred to the Labour Court wherein, the petitioner examined himself and summoned Ramesh Kumar, Clerk. It is also pertinent to mention that an application dated 16.03.2012 was filed calling for the record from 01.05.2003 to 30.06.2004 and the seniority list of the applicant. The said clerk appeared on 20.12.2012 and stated that he has got the summoned record and the name of the workman did not find mention anywhere. This would be clear from Annexure P-8, now placed on record. It was in such circumstances that the Labour Court came to the conclusion that apart from the self serving statement, there was nothing on record to show that he had worked for 240 days preceding the date of termination. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has very vehemently argued that the petitioner had worked from the year 1984 onwards and the department had totally denied the relationship. He has placed on record some Annexures in the form of muster rolls to show that the petitioner's name figured on the said muster rolls and accordingly, it is submitted that the plea taken by the department was not correct regarding the denial of relationship. 6. He has placed on record some Annexures in the form of muster rolls to show that the petitioner's name figured on the said muster rolls and accordingly, it is submitted that the plea taken by the department was not correct regarding the denial of relationship. 6. Be that as it may, the department was unfair in denying the relationship inter se the parties but to seek the protection of the provisions Gupta Shivani of the Act, specially the fact that the provisions of Section 25F of the Act had not been followed, it was mandatory upon the workman to bring on record the fact that he had worked for 240 days preceding his termination. The workman, apart from his own statement, has not even produced any other witness who had worked in the said department along with him for allegedly two decades of service. It is impossible to believe that the petitioner, if he had worked for such a long period continuously as alleged or even if intermittently, would not be aware of the other persons who were employed and who would have deposed in his favour. The onus thus lay upon the petitioner. The principles of onus have been well illustrated in R.M. Yellatti Vs. The Assistant Executive Engineer, (2006) 1 SCC 106 wherein, the Apex Court laid down the principles that the drawing of adverse inference would depend upon the facts of each case and normally, the record of the employment is with the management and this Court is not to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the finding of the Labour Court unless they are perverse. The judgment relied upon by the counsel in Manager, R.B.I., Bangalore Vs. S. Mani and Others, (2005) 5 SCC 100 was also considered. The following principles were laid down: Analyzing the above decisions of this court, it is clear that the provisions of the Evidence Act in terms do not apply to the proceedings u/s 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, applying general principles and on reading the aforestated judgments, we find that this court has repeatedly taken the view that the burden of proof is on the claimant to show that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. This burden is discharged only upon the workman stepping in the witness box. However, applying general principles and on reading the aforestated judgments, we find that this court has repeatedly taken the view that the burden of proof is on the claimant to show that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. This burden is discharged only upon the workman stepping in the witness box. This burden is discharged upon the workman adducing cogent evidence, both oral and documentary. In cases of termination of services of daily waged earner, there will be no letter of appointment or termination. There will also be no receipt or proof of payment. Thus in most cases, the workman (claimant) can only call upon the employer to produce before the court the nominal muster roll for the given period, the letter of appointment or termination, if any, the wage register, the attendance register etc. Drawing of adverse inference ultimately would depend thereafter on facts of each case. The above decisions however make it clear that mere affidavits or self- serving statements made by the claimant/workman will not suffice in the matter of discharge of the burden placed by law on the workman to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. The above judgments further lay down that mere non-production of muster rolls per se without any plea of suppression by the claimant workman will not be the ground for the tribunal to draw an adverse inference against the management. Lastly, the above judgments lay down the basic principle, namely, that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution will not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the labour court unless they are perverse. This exercise will depend upon facts of each case. 7. The reference to the muster rolls now as Annexure P-5 and as Annexure P-5 (colly) would of no help. It was for the petitioner to place the material before the Labour Court. Once the said material had not been placed to show that he had worked for 240 days for the preceding one year and nothing could be shown from the record which was also produced, no fault can be found in the well reasoned order of the Labour Court. The adverse inference could only have been drawn against the department if the record had been withheld. As noticed above, the record had been produced. The adverse inference could only have been drawn against the department if the record had been withheld. As noticed above, the record had been produced. The Labour Court was well justified in rejecting the claim of the workman. Accordingly, there is no scope for interference in the well reasoned award passed by the Labour Court and the present writ petition is dismissed in limine.