The burden of proof cannot shift to the party at whose instance the dispute is raised, and the Labour Court must record reasons for its decisions.

( 1 ) HEARD the counsel for the parties and perused the record.

( 2 ) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the award dated 3. 7. 1997 published on 16. 8. 1997, Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner-Bank is the Regional rural Bank established under the Regional Rural Bank Act. The terms and conditions of the employment of the Bank are Government in accordance with the Bank Services Regulations and the guidelines issued by the Government of India and the Reserv Bank of India.

( 3 ) THE facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 was engaged as a part-time daily worker in etawah Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Raja Ka Bagh Branch, Etawah, for doing odd jobs as and when exigency of work required. He was terminated from service with effect from 2. 4. 1987 and raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kanpur, hereinafter referred to as C. G. I. T.

( 4 ) THE case of the Bank is that respondent No. 2 never worked for 240 days as claimed by him. He had worked only for 170 days. He was neither discharged nor retrenched from service nor he had worked continuously in the Bank, hence the provisions of Sections 25b, 25g and 25j of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947, are not attached in his case and also that part-time workman is not covered within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

( 5 ) THE counsel for the petitioner submits that C. G. I. T. had committed an error of law by applying the provisions of Section 25r of the Act after giving a categorical finding that there is no breach of Sections 25g and 25h of the Act. There has been miscarriage of justice by allowing the claim of respondent No. 2, inspite of the aforesaid findings particularly in the circumstances that burden of proof was on respondent No. 2 to prove that he had continuously worked and that termination of his service by the Bank was illegal and as such the award is illegal, void and is without jurisdiction.

( 6 ) APART from the above he has challenged the award basically on the following questions of law : (1) The impugned award of the labour court is perverse as respondent No. 2 was engaged as a part-time casual labourer by the bank for doing odd job and there was a specific plea that maximum number of days on which respondent No. 2 had actually worked, was 172 days yet c. G. I. T. had allowed the claim of the workman, which is not only against the evidence of record, but the findings also are perverse and are liable to be quashed. (2) The engagement of a part-time daily wage workers cannot be determined within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the claimant-workman has to prove his claim of continuous service which cannot be presumed and the labour court has committed an illegality in relying upon the statement of the workman, which was not supported by any document for drawing adverse inference against the employer. (3) The service conditions of the employees are governed by the statutory rules and regulations, hence according to the law laid down in Himanshu Kumar Vidhyarthi v. State of Bihar, 1997 (76) FLR 237, the Apex Court held that the Bank is not a factory.

( 7 ) THE case of respondent-workman is that he was appointed in Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Raja ka Bagh Branch, Etawah, on class IV post as daily wager on 18. 2. 1986, but the respondent-bank terminated his services without any rhyme and reason with effect from 2. 4. 1987 in breach of section 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The counsel for the respondent-workman submits that from the certificate issued by the Branch Manager of the Branch of Kshetriya gramin Bank, Etawah, it is clear that he had completed more than 240 days in one calendar year. He further, submits that the services of the employees, who worked 29 hours in a week, have been regularised by the bank on the basis of Central Government order dated 11. 3. 1990 and R. R. B. Rule 4 (10) dated 22. 2. 1991, but