Aparesh Kumar Singh,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The Ministry of Labour, Government of India vide order dated 30th April, 2001 referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.I, Dhanbad:- Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Dalmianagar of Dehri in terminating the services of Sri Kamleshwar Ram is justified If not, what relief the workman is entitled
(2.) This led to institution of Reference Case No.50 of 2002 which has been answered by the impugned award at Annexure-2 dated 1st February, 2011 by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.I, Dhanbad. Learned Tribunal upon consideration of the written statement, evidence adduced on behalf of the parties and the judgments relied upon by them came to a conclusion that the action of the management State Bank of India, Dalmianagar of Dehri in terminating the services of workman is justified and he is not entitled to any relief.
(3.) Perusal of the relevant material records and the impugned award shows that the petitioner-workman had failed to produce any document of his appointment as a permanent messenger under the respondent-Bank while he has contended that he was appointed on permanent vacancy on 26th April, 1972 at Nagar Untari Branch and had since been working there till he was dismissed from service on 4th May, 1975. The management in its written statement and evidence stated that the concerned workman had not completed 240 days in a calender year. The dispute had been raised after 25 years of his termination. The service was terminated as his conduct was not found to be satisfactory. He was a habitual absentee. He was engaged only for temporary period and has worked for 30 days in March, 1975, for six days in April, 1975, for seven days in May, 1975 and in June, July and August, 1975 for four, two and one day only. His services were terminated w.e.f. 4th August, 1975 after giving 14 days notice. He has never completed 240 days attendance in any calender year and was temporarily appointed. The concerned workman had produced himself as W.W.1 and proved Exbts. W-1 to 5. The management had produced a witness M.W.1 who proved the documents as M-1 series.;