Pursuant to the order dated 6.8.2009, the lower court records have been received and the parties have been heard at length.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the award dated 21.4.2003 passed by the Presiding Officer of Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad in Reference No. 141 of 1990 (Annexure-1), by which the Presiding Officer of Industrial Tribunal, in answer to the reference made to it held that the demand for regularization of the services of all the contractor's workers engaged in repairing of quarters and handling of goods etc. is not justified and the workmen are not entitled to any relief.

3. The claim of the workmen is that since they continuously worked for more than 240 days in a year in different collieries, and therefore, they are entitled to be taken in regular service of M/s B.C.C.L.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, challenged that findings of the Industrial Tribunal wherein it was stated by the Tribunal that no document was produced on behalf of the workmen to show that the workmen worked more than 240 days in a calendar year. Mr. Samir Saurabh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by referring to some of the un-exibited documents filed on behalf of the workmen before the Tribunal, submitted that on behalf of the workmen, copy of the Muster Roll as well as the Work Orders were filed before the Tribunal, but the Tribunal by ignoring all those documents came to the findings that no document was filed on behalf of the petitioner to show that they worked for more than 240 days and therefore, the findings of the Tribunal is perverse, since it is not based on materials on record.

5. On the other hand. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing for M/s B.C.C.L. submits that no doubt some documents like copy of the muster roll, as well as the work orders were filed by the workmen before the Tribunal, but, on perusal of the same it would appear that even if those documents are taken into consideration as evidence, but from those documents, it is not established that the workmen continuously worked .for more than 240 days in a particular year. These documents only show that the workmen worked for about 4 months in the year 1986, but that is not sufficient to establish the said fact.

6. After going through the documents referred by the counsel for the petitioner, I also find that those documents only relate to few months of the year 1986, and from those documents, it is not established that the workmen worked for more than 240 days continuously in one year.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore vs. S. Mani & Others. reported in (2005)5 SCC 100 has held that-

"Continuous service of 240 days does not by itself give a rise of claim of permanence."

8. The initial burden of proof is on the workmen to show that they had completed 240 days of service, and this onus of proof cannot be shifted to the employer. It is for the workmen to discharge this burden that they had worked for more than 240 days continuously.

9. In the present case, as already noticed above the petitioner has failed to discharge the onus since they failed to ct that they worked for more than 240 days continuously in one year.

10. Thus in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court noticed above, it has to held that the petitioner has failed to discharge the onus, and therefore, I do not find any illegality in that regard in the impugned award. No other point has been urged on behalf of the petitioner. Accordingly, having found no merit, this application is dismissed.