JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J. The present petition has been preferred by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the award dated 19.07.2004 (hereinafter referred to as "Impugned award") passed by Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi in ID. No. 181/98.

2. Vide the impugned award, the learned Labour Court denied relief to the petitioner since he failed to prove that he was appointed as a Messenger-cum-Water boy through a regular process. Also, learned Labour Court held that the petitioner was unable to establish that he moved an application for absorption in the service in pursuance of the Bipartite Settlement, therefore, is not entitled to regularisation of service.

FACTS RELEVANT FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE MATTER

3. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition is that the petitioner was recruited as Messenger-cum-Water Boy in January 1983 at Nangli Sakrawati branch of the Respondent Bank. He rendered his service till December 1986, after which his service was terminated by the respondent Bank.

4. Meanwhile, on 17.11.1987, the Bank entered into a Bipartite settlement under Section 2(p) read with Sec. 18(1) of the Indus