Allahabad High Court
SAM HIGGINBOTTOM INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE TECHNOLOYY AND SC.versusTHE LABOUR COURT VARANASI AND 24 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The workmen failed to discharge the burden of proving 240 days of service, making the Labour Court's findings perverse; therefore the awards are set aside.
Summary
The Sam Higginbottom Institute challenged awards of the Labour Court that held the retrenchment of 22 workmen illegal on the basis that they had worked more than 240 days in a calendar year, allegedly violating the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Institute argued that the workmen had not produced any documentary or oral evidence to prove the 240‑day requirement and that the burden of proof rested on them. Citing a series of Supreme Court and High Court decisions, the Court held that affidavits and self‑serving statements are insufficient and that the workmen failed to discharge the initial burden of proof. Consequently, the finding that they had worked the requisite days was deemed perverse. The Court also noted the workmen were approaching superannuation, rendering a remand futile, and set aside the impugned awards, allowing the writ petitions.
Issues considered
- Whether the workmen proved they had worked at least 240 days in a calendar year as required under the Industrial Disputes Act.
- Whether the burden of proof for the 240‑day rule lies on the workmen.
- Whether the Labour Court's award of reinstatement and back wages was legally sustainable.
- Whether the awards should be set aside as perverse findings.
Legislation cited
- Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — s. 25-B, 25-F, 2(g), 6-N
Subjects
- retrenchment
- industrial disputes
- burden of proof
- 240 days rule
- reinstatement
- back wages
- U.P. Industrial Disputes Act
- labour court award
- perverse finding
- Article 226
Judgment
Reserved on 21.09.2026
Delivered on 30.09.2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 30128 of 2015
Sam Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture
Technology and Sciences …..Petitioner(s)
Versus
The Labour Court Varanasi and 24 others
…..Respondent(s)
Along with :
Writ - C No. 54062 of 2015:
Sam Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture Technology and Sciences
1.
Versus
The Labour Court Varanasi and 24 others
Writ – C No. 30129 of 2015:
Sam Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture Technology and Sciences
2.
Versus
The Labour Court Varanasi and 24 others
Writ – C No. 54061 of 2015:
Sam Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture Technology and Sciences
3.
Versus
The Labour Court Varanasi and 24 others
A.c.tiwari(ac), Amariteshwar Prasad Tripathi,
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amit Negi, Diptiman Singh, Ravi Kant, Smt.
Supriya P. Nagar
A.c.tiwari(ac), Abhishek Saroj, Amariteshwar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Prasad Tripathi, C.S.C., Rajendra Pratap Singh,
Shekhar Kumar, Sunil Kumar Yadav
2
Writ C No. 30128 of 2015
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Petitioner before this Court is Sam Higginbottom Institute of
Agriculture Technology and Sciences and is aggrieved by awards
impugned in above referred writ petitions whereby it was held that
alleged retrenchment of 22 Workmen was contrary to law since
allegedly they have worked for 240 days in a calendar year and
accordingly provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were not
followed. The other issue that Workmen were in process of transfer
to Contractor was not adjudicated since process was withdrawn.
Relevant part of one of the award dated 07.01.2015 impugned in
Writ-C No. 30128 of 2015, is reproduced hereinafter:
“11. मैंने दोनों पत्रावलियो का भलीभांति अवलोकन किया एवं तर्क के दौरान उठाये गये
विन्दुओं पर गम्भीरता से विचार किया ।
12. अभिनिर्णय विवाद सं. 01/2011 में श्रमिकों की मांग है कि उन्हें अवैधानिक तरीके से
संबिदाकर के अधीन कर दिया गया है जिसे निरस्त किया जाय। इस संबंध में सेवायोजक ने
अपने लिखित कथन एवं प्रत्युत्तर में यह स्पष्ट रूप से कहा है कि संबिदाकर के अधीन करने
का निर्णय प्रबंधन ने अपने पत्र दि. 22.2.2010 जिसे उपक्रमायुक्त, इलाहाबाद के समक्ष
पत्र दि. 24.2.2010 द्वारा प्रेरित किया है वापस ले लिया है। श्रमिकों के नोटिस दि.
25.01.2011 के उत्तर में प्रस्तुत उत्तर दि. 5.4.2011 के प्रस्तर. 2 में इस बात का उल्लेख
करते हुये सेवायोजक ने उपश्रमायुक्त को भेजे गये उपरोक्त पत्र की सत्यारित प्रति दाखिल
की है जिसमें कु ल 52 श्रमिकों के बारे में यह निर्णय लिया गया है कि ये दैनिक वेतन भोगी
कर्मचारी जिस प्रकार से विश्वविद्यालय प्रबंधन द्वारा वेतन पाते थे उसी प्रकार वेतन पाते रहेंगे
ओर ये विश्वविद्यालय प्रबंधन के ही अधीन रहेंगे। इस पत्र के बाबत श्रमिक पक्ष की ओर से
मात्र इतना ही कहा गया है कि चूंकि इन कर्मचारियों को सेवा समाप्ति कर दी गई अतः
इसका लाभ उन्हें नहीं मिल पा रहा है । अपने मौखिक साक्ष्य में भी श्री रामजी भारतीय एवं
श्री रोशन लाल साहू ने इस बाबत एक शब्द भी नहीं कहा है। उपरोक्त के आधार पर मैं इस
मत का हूँ कि अभिनिर्णय विवाद सं. 01/2011 में परिशिष्ट में अंकित 26 श्रमिकों को
3
Writ C No. 30128 of 2015
सेवायोजक ने संबिदाकार के अधीन करने का निर्णय वापस ले लिया है और वे विश्वविद्धालय
के ही कर्मचारी माने जायेंगे ।
13. अभिनिर्णय विवाद सं. 52/2011 में 22 श्रमिकों की दि. 5.10.2010 से सेवा समाप्ति
का मामला संदर्भित है। इस संबंध में श्रमिक गण का कथन है कि वे कई वर्षों से सेवायोजक
संस्थान में विभिन्न पदों पर कार्यरत है और जब इन लोगों ने नियमानुसार वेतन व अन्य
सुविधाये दिये जाने की मांग की तो सेवायोजक ने इन्हें नाराजगी वश सेवा से पृथक कर
दिया। इसके विपरीत सेपायोजक का कथन है कि ये श्रमिकगण स्वतः कार्य पर नहीं आ रहे
है और मुकदमा लड़ने के आदी है। श्रमिक गए की ओर श्री रोशन लाल साहू एवं श्री रामजी
भारतीय का मौखिक साक्ष्य लेखाबद्ध कराया गया है जिसमें उन्होनें कहा है कि ये लोग अपने
नियोजन की तिथि से लेकर सेवा समाप्ति की तिथि तक लगातार कार्य किये हैं और प्रत्येक
वर्ष 240 दिन से अधिक कार्य किये हैं। इन 22 श्रमिकों को सेवायोजकों ने नाराजगी वश दि.
5.10.2010 से सेवा से पृथक कर दिया। सेवा से पृथक करते समय इन्हें कोई नोटिस,
नोटिस पे आदि नहीं दिया गया। श्रमिक गण की ओर से दिये गये इस साक्ष्य के विपरीत कोई
साक्ष्य सेवायोजक की ओर से प्रस्तुत नहीं किया गया है। सेवायोजक का यह कथन कि
उनका संस्थान एक शैक्षणिक संस्थान है और 'उद्योग' की परिधि में नहीं आता के बारे में भी
कु छ नहीं कहा गया। इसके विपरीत श्रमिकगण की ओर से 2000(84) एफ एल आर 126
हाल एजूके शन सोसाइटी, कोरवा व अन्य बनाम जीतेन्द्र कु मार श्रीवास्तव में मा० उच्च
न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद द्वारा दिये गये विधिक व्यवस्था प्रस्तुत किया गया है जिसमें शैक्षणिक
संस्थान को उद्योग माना गया है। सेवायोजक का यह स्थन कि ये श्रमिक गण स्वतः कार्य पर
आना बंद कर दिये मान्य नहीं है। यदि ये लोग कार्य पर आना बंद कर दिये तो सेवायोजक
द्वारा इन श्रमिकों को नोटिस भेजना अनिवार्य था। ऐसे किसी नोटिस को भेजे जाने की बात
सेवायोजक अपने अभिकथनों में नहीं कहते हैं । इसके विपरीत श्रमिक गण की ओर से
साक्ष्य द्वारा भी यह प्रमाणित किया गया है कि इनको अवैधानिक तरीके से कार्य से वंचित
कर दिया गया और कार्य से पृथ्क किये जाने से पूर्व इन्हें कोई नोटिस या नोटिस पे या
मुआवजा नहीं दिया गया । अतः वैधानिक प्राविधानों का उनुपालन किये बिना इन श्रमिकों
की सेवा समाप्ति अनुचित व अवैधानिक ही कहो जायेगी। अतः परिशिष्ट में अंकित सभी 22
श्रमिक गण अपने पूर्व पद पर तारतम्यता के साथ सेवा में बहाल किये जाते हैं। जहां तक बैक
वेजेज का संबंध है, ये सभी श्रमिक गण बैठकी अवधि का 2/3 पाने के अधिकारी होंगे।
इसके साथ ही वाद व्यय के रूप में भी सेवायोजक रु. दो हजार मात्र श्रमिक गण को प्रदान
करें गें ।"
2. Sri Diptiman Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, by referring
various judgments passed by Supreme Court as well as this Court in
4
Writ C No. 30128 of 2015
The Range Forest Officer vs. S.T. Hadimani, 2002(3) SCC 25;
Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan and
another, 2004(8) SCC 161; Manager, R.B.I., Bangalore vs. S. Mani
and others, 2005(5) SCC 100; Municipal Corporation, Faridabad vs.
Siri Niwas, 2004(8) SCC 195; Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar
Panchayat Gajraula and another, 2008(1) SCC 575; Assistant
Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and another vs. Gitam
Singh, 2013(5) SCC 136; Sr. Suptd. Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal vs.
Santosh Kumar Seal and others, 2010(125) FLR 736; M/s Devyani
Beverages Ltd. vs. Labour Court-II, Ghaziabad, 2006(108) FLR 426;
M/s Laxmi Palace (Cinema) Mahmoorganj Varanasi vs. Presiding
Officer Labour Court Varanasi, 2005(105) FLR 325; and, Zila
Panchayat Mathura vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner Agra Division
and others, 2011(131) FLR 625 submitted that Workmen have not
discharged burden of proof that they have worked 240 days in a
calendar year and that even upon order of reinstatement a direction of
2/3 back wages cannot be passed. He also referred a judgment passed
by this Bench in the case of State of U.P. and two others vs. Presiding
Officer, Labour Court and another, 2026:AHC:195564 and relevant
part thereof is mentioned hereinafter:
“7. I have considered aforesaid submissions and perused the material on
record.
8. In the present case, contesting-respondent has only made an oral
statement that he has continuously worked from 1986 to 1992 as well as
that for more than 240 days in a year. However, his oral submission was
not supported by any documentary evidence. Petitioner has brought on
record the muster roll between 1986 to 1989 wherein contesting-
respondent was granted priority to work as Chowkidar as and when
required. No further document was placed on record either by petitioner
or contesting-respondent. Therefore, a finding returned by Labour Court
that in terms of Section 2(g) of Industrial Disputes Act, the contesting-
5
Writ C No. 30128 of 2015
respondent was in continuous service and that he has worked for more
than 240 days in a calendar year, would not be justified.
9. Otherwise also, even if the order of reinstatement is upheld, the further
direction of full back wages would be contrary to settled law position as
held by Supreme Court in Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State
Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division, Kota vs Mohan Lal, (2013)
14 SCC 543 as well as State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Krishna Murari
Sharma, 2025 INSC 1500 that an order of full back wages cannot be
automatic with an order of reinstatement.
10. The Court also takes note that contesting-respondent has 2-3 years to
work if he is reinstated though there is no material on record either
before Labour Court or before this Court that during earlier period
contesting-respondent was not gainfully employed.
11. In aforesaid circumstances, in the interest of justice, it would be
justified if this writ petition is disposed of with one time lump sum
compensation in view of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in State
of Uttar Pradesh vs. Krishna Murari Sharma (supra). Therefore,
considering that contesting-respondent has worked for about 6 years as
per his own case and Rs. 1 lakh has already been deposited, one time
lump sum compensation is determined to be Rs. 3 lacs. Contesting-
respondent will be at liberty to file an application for release of Rs. 1
lakh already deposited and remaining amount of Rs. 2 las shall be paid
by petitioners to contesting-respondent within four weeks from today.”
3. Learned counsel further submitted that Labour Court has not
considered that no affidavit or statement was made that Workmen
were not gainfully employed and even before this Court there is no
such averment.
4. Per contra, Sri Harish Chandra Dwivedi, Advocate holding
brief of Sri Sunil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for
contesting-respondents, i.e., Workmen, has supported impugned
awards that Workmen have engaged to do different works, they
worked regularly and more than 240 days and on one day they have
been told that they are disengaged. No prior notice was issued.
Provisions of Section 6-N of Act, 1947 was not complied with.
6
Writ C No. 30128 of 2015
5. I have considered aforesaid submissions and material on
record.
6. The age of all Workmen is not on record but one of the
Workman has declared his age as 45 years when this writ petition
was filed in the year 2015, therefore, either the Workmen have
crossed age of superannuation or they left for 3-4 years of service.
7. If a Workman claimed that he has worked for more than 240
days in a calendar year, he has to discharge atleast preliminary
burden on basis of statement and documents. Admittedly none of the
Workmen have entered in witness box before Labour Court since
award was passed only on basis of written statement. Therefore, in
the light of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of R.M.
Yellatti vs The Asst. Executive Engineer, 2006(1) SCC 106 that a
Workman has to discharge burden both orally and documentary, the
Court is of the opinion that said burden has not been discharged by
Workmen. Relevant part of said judgment is reproduced hereinafter:
“12. Now coming to the question of burden of proof as to the completion
of 240 days of continuous work in a year, the law is well settled. In the
case of Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore v. S. Mani reported
in (2005) 5 SCC 100, the workmen raised a contention of rendering
continuous service between April, 1980 to December, 1982 in their
pleadings and in their representations. They merely contended in their
affidavits that they had worked for 240 days. The tribunal based its
decision on the management not producing attendance register. In view
of the affidavits filed by the workmen, the tribunal held that the burden
on the workmen to prove 240 days service stood discharged. In that
matter, a three-judge bench of this court held that pleadings did not
constitute a substitute for proof and that the affidavits contained self-
serving statements; that no workman took an oath to state that they had
worked for 240 days; that no document in support of the said plea was
ever produced and, therefore, this court took the view that the workmen
had failed to discharge the burden on them of proving that they had
worked for 240 days. According to the said judgment, only by reason of
7
Writ C No. 30128 of 2015
non-response to the complaints filed by the workmen, it cannot be said
that the workmen had proved that they had worked for 240 days. In that
case, the workmen had not called upon the management to produce
relevant documents. The court observed that the initial burden of
establishing the factum of continuous work for 240 days in a year was on
the workmen. In the circumstances, this court set aside the award of the
industrial tribunal ordering reinstatement.
13. In the case of Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas
reported in (2004) 8 SCC 195, the employee had worked from 5.8.1994
to 31.12.1994 as a tube-well operator. He alleged that he had further
worked from 1.1.1995 to 16.5.1995. His services were terminated on
17.5.1995 whereupon an industrial dispute was raised. The case of the
employee before the tribunal was that he had completed working for 240
days in a year; the purported order of retrenchment was illegal as the
conditions precedent to section 25-F of Industrial Dispute Act were not
complied with. On the other hand, the management contended that the
employee had worked for 136 days during the preceding 12 months on
daily wages. Upon considering all the material placed on record by the
parties to the dispute, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the total
number of working days put in by the employee were 184 days and thus
he, having not completed 240 days of working in a year, was not entitled
to any relief. The tribunal noticed that neither the management nor the
workman cared to produce the muster roll w.e.f. August, 1994; that the
employee did not summon muster roll although the management had
failed to produce them. Aggrieved by the decision of the tribunal, the
employee filed a writ petition before the High Court which took the view
that since the management did not produce the relevant documents
before the industrial tribunal, an adverse inference should be drawn
against it as it was in possession of best evidence and thus, it was not
necessary for the employee to call upon the management to do so. The
High Court observed that the burden of proof may not be on the
management but in case of non-production of documents, an adverse
inference could be drawn against the management. Only on that basis,
the writ petition was allowed holding that the employee had worked for
240 days. Overruling the decision of the High Court, this court found on
facts of that case that the employee had not adduced any evidence before
the court in support of his contention of having complied with the
requirement of section 25-B of Industrial Dispute Act; that apart from
examining himself in support of his contention, the employee did not
produce or call for any document from the office of the management
including the muster roll (MR) and that apart from muster rolls, the
employee did not produce offer of appointment or evidence concerning
8
Writ C No. 30128 of 2015
remuneration received by him for working during the aforementioned
period. It is in this light that this court, speaking through Hon'ble Sinha,
J., has held as follows:
"15. A court of law even in a case where provisions of the
Evidence Act apply, may presume or may not presume that if a
party despite possession of the best evidence had not produced the
same, it would have gone against his contentions. The matter,
however, would be different where despite direction by a court the
evidence is withheld. Presumption as to adverse inference for non-
production of evidence is always optional and one of the factors
which is required to be taken into consideration is the background
of facts involved in the lis. The presumption, thus, is not
obligatory because notwithstanding the intentional non-
production, other circumstances may exist upon which such
intentional non-production may be found to be justifiable on some
reasonable grounds. In the instant case, the Industrial Tribunal did
not draw any adverse inference against the appellant. It was
within its jurisdiction to do so particularly having regard to the
nature of the evidence adduced by the respondent.
16. No reason has been assigned by the High Court as to why the
exercise of discretional jurisdiction of the Tribunal was bad in
law. In a case of this nature, it is trite, the High Court exercising
the power of judicial review, would not interfere with the
discretion of a Tribunal unless the same is found to be illegal or
irrational."
14. In the case of Range Forest Officer (supra), the dispute was
referred to the labour court as to whether the workman had completed
240 days of service. Vide award dated 10.8.1988, the tribunal held that
the services were wrongly terminated without giving retrenchment
compensation. In arriving at this conclusion, the tribunal stated that in
view of the affidavit of the workman saying that he had worked for 240
days, the burden was on the management to show justification in
termination of the service. It is in this light that the division bench of this
court took the view that the tribunal was not right in placing the burden
on the management without first determining on the basis of cogent
evidence that the workman had worked for 240 days in the year
preceding his termination. This court held that it was for the claimant to
lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year
preceding his termination; that filing of an affidavit is only his own
statement in his own favour which cannot be recorded as sufficient
evidence for any court or tribunal to come to the conclusion that a
9
Writ C No. 30128 of 2015
workmen had worked for 240 days in a year. This court found that there
was no proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days; that letter of
appointment was not produced; that letter of termination was not
produced on record and, therefore, award was set aside.
15. In the case of Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. (supra),
the workman had alleged that he had worked for more than 240 days in
the year concerned, which claim was denied by the management. The
workman had merely filed an affidavit in support of his case. Therefore,
the division bench of this court took the view that it was for the claimant
to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year
preceding his termination. This court observed that filing of an affidavit
was not enough because the affidavit contained self- serving statement of
the workman which cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any
court or tribunal to come to the conclusion that the claimant had worked
for 240 days in a year. Further, this court found that there was no proof
of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days and, therefore, mere non-
production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for
the labour court to hold that the workman had worked for 240 days as
claimed. On the facts of that case, the court found that even if the period
for which the workman had alleged to have worked was taken into
account, as mentioned in his affidavit, still the said workman did not
fulfill the requirement of completion of 240 days of service and,
therefore, this court set aside the award of the labour court.
16. In the case of M.P. Electricity Board (supra), the workmen were
engaged by the board on daily wages for digging pits to erect electric
polls. It was the case of the board that on completion of the project, the
employment was terminated and whenever a similar occasion arose for
digging pits, the workmen were re-employed on daily wages and,
therefore, their employment was not permanent in nature nor had the
workmen completed 240 days of continuous work in a given year. The
project jobs came to an end in 1991 and the workmen were never re-
employed by the board. Being aggrieved by the said non-employment,
the workmen filed applications under MP Industrial Relations Act
seeking permanent employment, primarily on the ground that they have
completed 240 days in a year and their discontinuation of service
amounted to retrenchment without following the legal requirements. The
board denied the allegations made in the application before the labour
court. An application was moved before the labour court by the workmen
seeking direction to the board to produce the muster roll for the
concerned period. However, no other material was produced by the
workmen to establish the fact that they had worked for 240 days
continuously in a given year. Some of the workmen were also examined
10
Writ C No. 30128 of 2015
before the labour court. However, no document was produced in the
form of letter of appointment, receipt indicating payment of salary etc.
After examining the entry in the muster rolls, the labour court came to
the conclusion that the workmen had not worked for 240 days
continuously in a given year, hence, they could not claim permanency
nor could they term their non-employment as retrenchment. Aggrieved
by the award of the labour court, the workmen preferred an appeal before
the industrial court at Bhopal which took the view that since the board
has failed to produce the entire muster roll for the year ending 1990, an
adverse inference was required to be drawn against the board and solely
based on the said inference, the industrial court accepted the case of the
workmen that they had worked for 240 days continuously in a given
year. Accordingly, the industrial court granted reinstatement to the
workmen with 50% back wages. Drawing of such an adverse inference
was challenged before this Court by the MP Electricity Board. In the
light of the aforestated facts, this court opined that the industrial court or
the High Court could not have drawn an adverse inference for non-
production of the muster rolls for the years 1990 to 1992, particularly in
the absence of a specific plea by the claimants that they had worked
during the period for which muster rolls were not produced. This court
observed that initial burden of establishing the factum of their
continuous work for 240 days in a year was on the workmen and since
that burden was not discharged, the industrial court and the High Court
had erred in ordering reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn
erroneously.
17. 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
under section 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. 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
11
Writ C No. 30128 of 2015
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.”
8. In aforesaid circumstances, since from perusal of impugned
awards it is evident that Workmen have not discharged even initial
burden, therefore, the finding that they have worked more than 240
days in a calendar year is a perverse finding.
9. Normally, in these circumstances an order of remand can be
passed, however, since the Workmen have already crossed age of
superannuation or about to cross the age of superannuation,
therefore, no fruitful purpose will be served to remand the matter.
10. In view of above, writ petitions are allowed. Impugned awards
dated 07.01.2015 (in Writ-C Nos. 30128 of 2015 and 30129 of 2015)
and 25.08.2015 (in Writ-C Nos. 54061 of 2015 and 54062 of 2015)
are hereby set aside and legal consequence of it shall follow.
(SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.)
September 30, 2026
AK
Digitally signed by :-
AWADESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…