ORDER 1. These intra-Court appeals are directed against orders dated 20.5.19 and 27.5.19 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby Writ Petition Nos.21454/18 & 21410/18 respectively preferred by the appellants herein, assailing the legality of award dated 12.7.18 & 11.7.18 passed by the Labour Court, Kota in Industrial Dispute Case Nos.119/2000 & 464/01 respectively, have been dismissed. 2. The appeals preferred by the appellants Cheetar Lal & others and Madhukant Mishra are reported to be barred by limitation for 48 days & 63 days respectively. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on application under Section 5 of Limitation Act as also on merits of the special appeals. 4. For the reasons stated in the applications seeking condonation of delay, we are of the opinion that the appellants were prevented from filing the intra-Court appeals within limitation for sufficient cause and therefore, the applications seeking condonation of delay are allowed. The delay in filing the intra-Court appeals is condoned. 5. The relevant facts are that the appellants herein who were employed with the Municipal Board, Sangod on contractual basis, aggrieved by their termination of services, raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. The conciliation proceedings failed, consequently, the Conciliation Officer submitted the failure report to the State Government, which in its turn referred the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Kota. 6. The appellants filed their statement of claim before the Labour Court claiming that they had completed 240 days of service in a calendar year preceding the date of retrenchment, however, they were neither served with one month's notice nor the compensation was paid to them and thus, the retrenchment effected by the respondent- employer without compliance of provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act of 1947"), is null and void. 7. The claim was contested by the respondent-employer by filing a counter thereto. The appellants claimed that their services were brought to an end w.e.f. 1.8.98/30.5.99, however, the respondent-employer denying the assertions made, claimed that the appellants were not in its employment after October, 1995. The respondent averred that after abolition of octroi duty in the State of Rajasthan, the services of the appellants who were engaged on contractual basis through contractor were brought to an end. 8. The parties led their evidence. The respondent averred that after abolition of octroi duty in the State of Rajasthan, the services of the appellants who were engaged on contractual basis through contractor were brought to an end. 8. The parties led their evidence. On the submissions made on behalf of the appellants, the Labour Court directed the respondent-employer to produce the seniority list of the employees engaged on contractual basis, however, the respondent-employer denied the existence of any such list and asserted that such document is not even relevant. 9. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned Labour Court arrived at the finding that on the basis of the documentary evidence, it is not proved that the appellants were employed by the Municipal Board, Sangod rather, they were employed through a contractor and they have not been able to establish that they had completed 240 days of service in a calendar year preceding the date of retrenchment i.e. 1.8.98 and 30.5.99. Accordingly, the Labour Court arrived at the conclusion that the appellants are not entitled to protection under the provisions of Section 25F of the Act of 1947. 10. Aggrieved by the awards passed by the Labour Court, the appellants preferred two separate writ petitions before this Court. In Cheetar Lai & Others, the learned Single Judge after due examination of material on record arrived at the finding keeping in view the specific stand taken by the employer, the Labour Court has not committed any illegality in coming to the conclusion that the appellants were not engaged as daily wages employee after 21.10.95. The Court opined that the seniority list was having no bearing in the matter. The Court observed that in exercise of the power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot re-appreciate or substitute the findings arrived at by the Labour Court. Accordingly, the writ preferred by Cheetar Lai & others was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 20.5.19. The writ preferred by Madhukant Mishra was dismissed vide order dated 27.5.19 in light of decision in Cheetar Lal & others. 11. Accordingly, the writ preferred by Cheetar Lai & others was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 20.5.19. The writ preferred by Madhukant Mishra was dismissed vide order dated 27.5.19 in light of decision in Cheetar Lal & others. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants while reiterating the contentions raised before the learned Single Judge submitted that the respondent-employer failed to produce the seniority list despite the directions issued by the Labour Court and thus, the Labour Court was under an obligation to draw adverse inference against the respondent-employer regarding the appellants being in continuous service for a period more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding the date of retrenchment and thus, the retrenchment effected admittedly without compliance of provisions of Section 25F of the Act of 1947, was liable to be declared illegal and void and the appellants were entitled to be reinstated in service with consequential benefits. Learned counsel submitted that the factum of the appellants being in employment of the respondent for more than 240 days preceding the date of retrenchment stood proved on the basis of the documentary evidence on record and thus, the findings arrived at by the Labour Court are ex facie capricious and perverse. Relying upon a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basti Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Ram Ujagar & others: AIR 1964 SC 355 , learned counsel submitted that terms of employment of the appellants sufficiently indicate that they were employed by the principal employer and not by the contractor as alleged. 12. Indisputably, the respondent-employer had taken a categorical stand before the Labour Court that none of the workmen was in its employment after October, 1995 and thus, the factum of termination of services of the workmen w.e.f. 1.8.98/30.5.99 is absolutely incorrect. That apart, it was averred that the appellants were engaged in the octroi duty section upto October, 1995 through a contractor and after abolition of the octroi duty in the State, the contract with the contractor was brought to an end. That apart, it was averred that the appellants were engaged in the octroi duty section upto October, 1995 through a contractor and after abolition of the octroi duty in the State, the contract with the contractor was brought to an end. No evidence worth the name was produced by the appellants before the Court to establish the fact that they were in employment of the respondent-employer upto 1.8.98/30.5.99 and thus, in absence of any cogent evidence, the finding arrived at by the Labour Court that the factum of the appellants being in continuous employment of the respondent-employer for a period of 240 days in a calendar year preceding the date of retrenchment is not established, cannot be faulted with. 13. The burden to prove the basic facts constituting the violation of provisions of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 was upon the appellants. As laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Range, Forest Officer vs. 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 by the workman is only his statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the workman had in fact worked for 240 days in a year. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.M. Yellati vs. Asst. Executive Engineer : [ (2006) 1 SCC 106 ]. 14. In this view of the matter, the appellants having failed to produce any evidence to prove that they were in employment of the respondent-employer for a period of 240 day spreceding the date of retrenchment, the provisions of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 are not attracted in the matter. 15. Regarding the failure of the respondent to produce seniority list, suffice it to say that the respondent-employer had categorically denied the existence of any such list. 15. Regarding the failure of the respondent to produce seniority list, suffice it to say that the respondent-employer had categorically denied the existence of any such list. The factum of existence of such seniority list of the persons alleged to be in employment of the respondent-employer, was not established by the appellants by producing any evidence and thus, the Labour Court was absolutely justified in declining to draw the adverse inference against the respondent-employer regarding the appellants being in employment for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding the alleged date of retrenchment. 16. For the aforementioned reasons, the orders impugned passed by the learned Single Judge, declining to interfere with the awards passed by the Labour Court, Kota do not warrant any interference by us in intra-Court appeal jurisdiction. 17. The special appeals are therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.