The burden of proof lies with the workman to establish working for 240 days, and persons entering service illegally cannot claim protection of the law to become permanent part of the establishment.

Petitioner has challenged the award of the Labour Court which dismissed his claim for reinstatement and back wages. He had pleaded before that Court that he had been employed by the first respondent from 14.11.1989, that his services were terminated on 17.7.1990, and that he had completed 240 days and, therefore, the termination effected without complying with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act was illegal.

2. The Labour Court has upheld the contention of the Management that the Branch Manager who gave him the casual employment did not have authority to appoint persons to the services of the first respondent. Ex.M.4, a copy of the Government Order of 25.9.1978 was relied on. The Labour Court has observed that from that Government Order, it is clearly seen that the Branch Manager has no power to appoint a conductor or any other category of employees, but for emergency needs, he could appoint employees on casual basis. The Labour Court has held that the appointment itself being illegal and void ab initio, the workman cannot derive any sustenance from the factum of his having worked on 15.11.1989, or thereafter.

3. The Labour Court has also rejected the workman's claim that he had worked for 240 days. It has observed that from Ex.W.1 and Ex.W.2, the petitioner was not able to prove that he had served continuously as casual workman for 240 days.

4. It is to be noticed that no order of appointment was produced before the Labour Court, and the material produced did not show that he had worked for 240 days.

5. Counsel for the workman contended that the burden of establishing that he had not worked for 240 days is on the Management, and that the burden has been wrongly cast on the employee. He referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Srirangam Co- operative Urban Bank Ltd. Vs. Labour Court (1996 (1) L.L.N.647). He also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of H.D.Singh Vs. Reserve Bank of India & Ors. (1986 (I) L.L.N.127).Reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of Shrawan Kumar Jha Vs. State of Bihar (1991 Lab.I.C. 1317) which was a case of termination of employment of Teachers without notice.

6. In the case of H.D. Singh (1986 (I) L.L.N.127) (supra), the Apex Court noted that on the facts of that case and in the absence of any records produced by the Bank, the case of the employee that he had worked for 240 days had to be accepted as true. It has not laid down therein that the burden of disapproving the case set up by the workman is on the Management. The decision of this Court in the case of Srirangam Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. (1996 (1) L.L.N.647)(supra) to the effect that despite the illegality at the inception, nevertheless, the employee would acquire rights after completing service of 240 days can no longer be regarded as good law in the light of the later judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashwin Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (1997 (2) SCC 1). Persons who entered service illegally and in breach of the law cannot seek protection of the law to remain in service and claim a right to become permanent part of the establishment on the basis of an illegal entry. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Justine, L Vs. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies (2002 (4) CTC 385) has applied the principle to the case of persons of the co-operative societies who had entered into service illegally.

7. In this case, the workman is clearly a person who had been given casual employment by a Branch Manager who had no power to appoint him on regular service, but he could appoint persons during emergency. There is no order appointing the petitioner to any permanent post, nor is there any record to show that he had worked continuously for 240 days.

8. When an employee claims protection under Section 25-F of the Act by pleading that he had worked for 240 days, the burden is clearly on the workman, and unless he discharged the burden, he cannot expect to have his case for protectio