H.K. Rathod, J.—Heard learned Advocate Mr. M.N. Devnani on behalf of petitioner, learned Advocate Mr. P.J. Malkan appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned Advocate Mr. P.S. Chari appearing for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

2. In the present petition, petitioner has challenged the order passed by Respondent No. 1 dated 30.01.2001, where the Government thought it fit not to refer industrial dispute for adjudication on the ground that workman was engaged against leave vacancies or due to temporary increase in work on casual basis. The workman failed to establish his case prima facie of continuous employment during the relevant period or to disprove the fact that he has self employed after obtaining loan of Rs. 95,000/- from the Bank and left casual work on the Bank on his own.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Devnani submitted that on 11.08.1999, service of workman was terminated by the Bank without following any legal procedure. Therefore, dispute was raised on 04.10.1999. Thereafter, a letter written to Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Central on 21.10.1999 filing a complaint before him under Section 2-A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is necessary to note that complaint file