- (1.) Heard Sri Ranjeet Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the Respondent No.2 even in the revised call.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that undisputedly the petitioner was engaged on temporary basis by the Respondent No.2 as messenger at Naini Branch, Allahabad for the period from 6.5.2000 to 8.9.2004. However, according to the petitioner he continuously worked from 6.5.2000 till 4th November, 2006 on which date his services were illegally terminated by the Respondent No.2. Thereafter he raised an industrial dispute and the Central Government vide order dated 7.1.2008 referred the following question to the prescribed authority: "2. Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda, in terminating the services of Sri Mohd. Wazid Messenger, with effect from 4.11.2006 is justified and legal If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to"
(3.) It appears that the aforesaid reference was registered as Industrial Dispute Case No. 25 of 2008. During the course of proceeding in the aforesaid Industrial Dispute case, before the Respondent No.1 the petitioner filed 25 documents and the Respondent No.2 filed 10 documents. The Respondent No.2 produced two witnesses, namely, Sri Ram Palat (MW-1), who was an officer of the bank and Sri Manglesh Dubey (MW-2). The witnesses were examined. As per impugned award the petitioner filed photostat copies of some vouchers. He moved an application dated 26th October, 2009 before the Respondent No.1 for summoning certain documents. Despite the application moved by the petitioner, the records were not summoned. Although in the impugned award the Respondent No.1 noted the facts in some detail but he rejected the claim of the petitioner without consideration to the facts of the case and his application for summoning of the records. The relevant portion of the impugned award is reproduced below: "22. I have respectfully gone through the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, but considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that the workman cannot take any benefit from this decision. 23. I have examined the contention of the workman that the opposite party did not file the relevant documents relating to the period 2005-06. I do not find that there is any malafide intention of the opposite party in withholding the records because the opposite party, their witnesses have specifically stated that the workman did not work during the period 2005-06. This fact can also be relied because when the workman himself is filing all the related vouchers etc. then he could not have also filed the other entire document relating to the period 2005-06, but there is no such document which may prove that the workman has completed 240 days of continuous working. Therefore, the workman has miserably failed to prove this case. 24. Reference is therefore, decided against the workman and in favour of the management.";