JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. This petition is directed against award dated 6.12.01 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, in Labour Dispute Case No.39/91, published by the appropriate Government under Section 17 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act"), vide notification dated 29.5.02. 2. The petitioner concern, which was engaged in marble trading at Udaipur utilised the services of the contractors Jawahar Lal and Babu Lal to supply certain labourers for the work of loading and unloading of marble tiles. The services of the labourers provided to the petitioner concern by the contractors were brought to an end. The labourers made a demand to treat them regular employees which was not acceded to by the petitioner concern. Later, the petitioner concern closed down its trading activity in the month of January, 1991. The labourers raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer, Labour Department, Udaipur, claiming reinstatement in service and for treating them regular employees of the petitioner concern. The conciliation proceedings failed and the Conciliation Officer submitted the failure report to the appropriate Government, which in its turn referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Udaipur, vide notification dated 1.10.91 in the following terms: ^D;k ifjrks"k ekcZy esa dk;Zjr Jfedksa dks ftudk izfrfuf/kRo y?kq m|ksx etnwj ;wfu;u mn;iqj lhVw us fd;k Bsdsnkj ds Jfed ekuuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gS\ ;fn ugha rks Jfedksa dks dke ls fudkyuk vkSj vkanksyu djus ij Hkh iqu% dke ij u ysuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gS\ ;fn ugha rks Jfed fdl jkgr dks ikus ds vf/kdkjh gSa\* 3. Pursuant to the notification issued by the State Government as aforesaid, on behalf of the respondent Laghu Udyog Mazdoor Union ('the Union'), its President one Shri Aail Das submitted statement of claim before the Labour Court, claiming that members of the Union, 19 in numbers, had completed 240 days of service in a calendar year, however, their services have been terminated w.e.f. 2.11.90 by the petitioner concern in violation of provisions of Section 25-F & 25-G of the Act. 4. The petitioner concern filed a counter to the statement of claim raising the objections that the dispute has been referred by the State Government without application of mind as the Union has no locus standi to raise the dispute on behalf of the persons who are not the employee of the petitioner concern. 4. The petitioner concern filed a counter to the statement of claim raising the objections that the dispute has been referred by the State Government without application of mind as the Union has no locus standi to raise the dispute on behalf of the persons who are not the employee of the petitioner concern. The dispute referred by the appropriate Government was not accompanied by the list of the workmen and therefore, the petitioner concern raised an objection that in absence of the list of workmen, the dispute referred cannot be determined. The petitioner concern denied the relationship of Master and Servant. It was stated that dispute referred is absolutely vague as it does not even mention the date of termination of the workmen and therefore, it cannot be decided as to what relief the workmen are entitled. It was the specific stand of the petitioner concern that the persons named in the statement of claim were never employed by it and the claim filed on their behalf already stand rejected by the Authority Prescribed under the Payment of Wages Act, Udaipur. 5. In support of the claim, the Union filed affidavits of the workmen S/Shri Gopa Dangi, Jamna Lal Gayri, Dunga Dangi, Rooplal Dangi, Tulsiram Dangi, Keshar Singh, Naru Dangi, Uda Dangi and Laxmilal. The deponents were cross examined by the representative of the petitioner concern. It is stated that even in cross examination, the workmen nowhere stated that on which date they were employed by the petitioner concern and in what manner they were in continuous service of the petitioner concern for more than a year. 6. On behalf of the petitioner concern, the affidavits of Kapur Chand was filed before the Labour Court, who was cross examined by the representative of the Union. 7. After consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Udaipur accepted the claim of the Union holding that the persons named in the statement of claim were in employment of the petitioner concern and the petitioner concern is the principal employer of the workmen. The Labour Court held the termination of the services amounts to retrenchment which was effected in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F & 25-G of the Act. The workmen were declared entitled for reinstatement in services w.e.f. 2.11.90 with back wages. Hence, this petition. 8. The Labour Court held the termination of the services amounts to retrenchment which was effected in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F & 25-G of the Act. The workmen were declared entitled for reinstatement in services w.e.f. 2.11.90 with back wages. Hence, this petition. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Labour Court has failed to determine the preliminary objections raised by the petitioner concern in its statement of claim. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent Union had no locus standi to maintain the dispute on behalf of the workmen and the dispute referred was absolutely vague. Learned counsel submitted that the finding arrived at by the Labour Court that 19 employees named in the statement of claim were the employees of the petitioner concern. Learned counsel urged that the petitioner concern never utilised the services of the workmen named in the statement of claim. Learned counsel urged that even the affidavits filed on behalf of the workmen, nowhere disclose the factum of the date of their employment and were not able to establish that they were in continuous employment of the petitioner concern for a period of 240 days in a calendar year preceding the date of their so called retrenchment. Learned counsel submitted that without determination of the basic questions, the Labour Court has seriously erred in holding that the retrenchment of the workmen was in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F & 25-G of the Act. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, in the statement of claim, there was no foundation of facts with regard to the employment of the workmen with the petitioner concern and alleged retrenchment effected by the petitioner concern. Learned counsel submitted that Shri Kapur Chand Mehta, who was examined as witness on behalf of the petitioner concern specifically stated that the petitioner concern has closed the business since January, 1991, the fact which was not even disputed by the respondent Union and therefore, the Labour Court has seriously erred in directing the reinstatement of the workmen in service with back wages. 9. 9. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent Union submitted that after due appreciation of the evidence, the findings recorded by the Labour Court remain findings of facts, which cannot be said to be capricious or perverse so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that the Labour Court has arrived at a categorical finding that the workmen named in the statement of claim were not engaged by the contractor Babu Lal and Jawahar Lal as claimed on behalf of the petitioner concern and the workmen were in the direct employment of the petitioner concern. Learned counsel submitted that the Labour Court has also arrived at categorical finding that the termination of services of the workmen having been effected in violation of Section 25F & 25G of the Act, is illegal and void and thus, the award impugned passed directing reinstatement of the workmen in service w.e.f. 2.11.90 with back wages cannot be faulted with. 10. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 11. A perusal of the statement of claim submitted on behalf of the respondent workmen reveals that it discloses names of 19 workmen alleged to have been engaged by the petitioner concern for the work of loading and unloading. It has stated that as on the date of termination i.e. 2.11.90, the workmen had completed 240 days of service, however, no details of the number of days for which the workmen were in employment of the petitioner concern during the calendar year preceding the date of retrenchment were not furnished. Even in the affidavit filed on behalf of some of the workmen before the Labour Court, no such details are given. 12. It is true that after appreciation of the evidence on record, the Labour Court has arrived at the finding that the workmen were not engaged through the contractor Jawahar Lal and Babu Lal as claimed by the petitioner concern rather, they were directly engaged for the work of loading and unloading by the petitioner concern. 12. It is true that after appreciation of the evidence on record, the Labour Court has arrived at the finding that the workmen were not engaged through the contractor Jawahar Lal and Babu Lal as claimed by the petitioner concern rather, they were directly engaged for the work of loading and unloading by the petitioner concern. But then, the claim of the workmen of their being in continuous employment of the petitioner concern for 240 days in a calendar year preceding the date of retrenchment having been denied by the petitioner concern, the onus to prove that he had completed 240 days of service in a calendar year preceding the date of retrenchment was on the workmen. As laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Range, Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani', [ (2002) 3 SCC 25 ], it is for the workman to lead evidence to show that he had worked for more than 240 days preceding his termination. The Hon'ble Court further observed that filing of an affidavit is only workman's 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. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'R.M. Yellati v. Asst. Executive Engineer', (2006) 1 SCC 106 . 13. Admittedly, no documentary evidence whatsoever was produced on behalf of the workmen before the Labour Court showing that they were in continuous service for a period of one year in a calendar year preceding the date of retrenchment. A perusal of the affidavits filed on behalf of the respondent workmen reveal that the same also do not contain any details regarding their being in employment of the petitioner concern for a period of 240 days in a calendar year preceding the date of retrenchment. A bare perusal of the impugned award makes it abundantly clear that the Labour Court while arriving at the finding that the workmen were engaged by the petitioner concern directly and not by the contractors, has straight away proceeded to hold that the termination of services of the workmen in violation of provisions of Section 25F of the Act, is invalid and void. There is no finding recorded by the Labour Court on the basis of the evidence led by the parties that the workmen were in continuous employment of the petitioner concern for a period of 240 days in a calendar year preceding the date of retrenchment. In the considered opinion of this court, in absence of any such finding, the provisions of Section 25F of the Act are not attracted in the matter and therefore, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court holding the retrenchment of the workmen to be violative of provisions of Section 25F of the Act is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 14. Coming to the question regarding employees junior to workmen being retained in service, Section 25G of the Act mandates that the employer shall ordinarily retrenched the workman who is the last person in the category wherein he has been employed unless, for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman. It goes without saying that so as to establish the violation of the provisions of Section 25G of the Act, the burden of proof lies on the workman to show that any person junior to him has been retained in service. It is to be noticed that in the statement of claim, the workmen have not named any person junior to them, who was retained in service while terminating their services. Suffice it to say that the workmen having failed to establish by placing any cogent evidence on record that while terminating their services persons junior to them in the same category were retained in service, the provisions of Section 25G are also not attracted in the matter. 15. In view of the discussion above, this court is firmly of the opinion that the findings arrived at by the Labour Court as aforesaid while holding the termination of services of the workmen being violative of the provisions of Section 25-F & 25-G of the Act, are ex facie capricious and perverse. 16. In the result, the petition succeeds, it is hereby allowed. The impugned award dated 6.12.01 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, in Labour Dispute Case No.39/91, published by the appropriate Government under Section 17 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide notification dated 29.5.02, is quashed. No order as to costs.