in support thereof, it was not possible for the Industrial Court to have answered the question whether the termination of such an employee by the Managements was correct and justified or not. Once the Workmen-Union satisfies the burden as to the Employee- Employer relationship and that the workman was a person who was entitled to have protection under the statute, the burden will shift to the Management to justify their action in the matter of termination. It is in the said background, that the necessity to have continuous service of 240 days in the preceding 12 months, in accordance with relevant provisions of the statute, was also subjected to scrutiny by the Industrial Court with reference to the pleadings and evidence on record, which came to be answered against the Workmen-Union, for having failed to discharge the burden in this regard. If only the burden was discharged from the part of the Workmen-Union in this regard and the action of Management was held as wrong and illegal, would arise the next question as to the relief to be granted i.e., whether the workers should be ordered to be reinstated and the consequential benefits, if any, or whether the workers were entitled for such other benefits including payment of compensation. The Workmen-Union having failed to cross the first hurdle, it was not correct or proper for them to have contended that the 'burden of proof' was upon the RespondentsManagements to prove a 'negative fact' with regard to the contents as contended in their written statement.’
