The burden of proof lies on the workman to show employment and continuous work for 240 days per year, and mere affidavits or self-serving statements are not sufficient to discharge this burden.

1. This writ petition is directed against the award of the Labour Court dated 25. 1999 in I.D. No. 133 of 1996 whereby the claim preferred by the petitioner against the first respondent for reinstatement was rejected.

2. Factual matrix necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as under:

(a) The petitioner was appointed as Skilled Simplex Machine Tender in the first respondent Company and he was working in the said establishment with effect from 22. 1990, without any break, for a period of five years and he had also put in 300 days of continuous service every (sic) year for the said period of five years. The petitioner was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 2,080/-.

(b) Since the first respondent Company refused to implement the various labour legislations, the petitioner represented to the management about the need to implement such welfare schemes and further called upon the management to regularize the employment of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said act, the petitioner was terminated from his service on 14. 1995 without any reason or notice.

(c) The matter was taken up by the petitioner before the Conciliation officer and finally, the Conciliation Officer submitted a Failure Report on 11. 1995 and accordingly, the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court in I.D. No. 133 of 1996, seeking reinstatement in service with full back wages as well as continuity in service and other attendant benefits.

(d) The said dispute was resisted by the first respondent and ultimately, the claim preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the Labour Court as per the award dated 16. 1999 in I.D. No. 133 of 1996 and aggrieved by the said proceeding, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Labour Court failed to consider the evidence produced by the petitioner in its proper perspective and shifted the burden on the petitioner to prove that he had worked in the first respondent Company for a period of 240 days per year, instead of directing the Company to produce the material documents to prove otherwise. According to the learned counsel, evidence produced before the Labour Court was sufficient to come to a conclusion that the petitioner had worked there continuously and as such, his termination was unsustainable in law.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent contended that no materials, much less acceptable materials, were produced before the Labour Court to show that the petitioner was appointed in the service of the first respondent and as such, the Labour Court was justified in rejecting the claim preferred by the petitioner.

5. The claim of the petitioner before the Labour Court was to the effect that he had put in more than five years of service in the first respondent Company and he was working more than 300 days per year and as such, he was entitled to be regularized in the Company but on the other hand, without any reason, he was terminated and as such, the very termination was illegal, warranting order of reinstatement with full backwages.

6. The said plea was opposed by the management by disputing the very status of the petitioner as a permanent employee and it was their case that the petitioner was only a casual worker and he was offered work as and when need arose and it was only the petitioner who did not report for duty and voluntarily left the service. It was their further contention that since the petitioner was only a casual worker, no action was taken against him and the alleged termination was only an afterthought.

7. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, he was examined as WW-1 and the staff of the first Respondent was examined as M.W.1 and Exhibits W-1 to W-5 and Exhibits M-1 to M-21 were marked on the side of the petitioner as well as first respondent respectively.

8. Since it was the claim of the petitioner that he was a permanent workman in the service of the f