K.M. Thaker, J.

1. Heard Mr. U.T. Mishra, learned advocate, for Mr. T.R. Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the respondent board.

2. The petitioner workman has taken out present petition and prayed, inter alia, that:-

"5(A) That Your Lordships be pleased to issue an order, direction and/or writ in the nature of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned Award dated 5th March, 2007, marked ANN. G to this petition and order dated 31st August, 2006 marked ANN. D to this petition, being illegal, perverse and contrary to record;

(B) That Your Lordships be further pleased to remand the matter back to rehear the reference and be further pleased to issue direction to the respondent to produce the documents sought for by the petitioner which is rejected vide order passed below Exh. 31;"

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 31.8.2006 passed by learned Tribunal below Exh. 31 in reference (IT) No. 76 of 1998.

3.1 By the impugned order dated 31.8.2006 passed below Exh. 31, the learned Tribunal rejected present petitioner's application seeking direction against respondent board to place on record document (attendance register) for the period from 1984 to 1987.

3.2 The petitioner is also aggrieved by final award dated 9.2.2007 passed by learned Tribunal in Reference No. 76 of 1998 whereby the learned Tribunal rejected the reference.

4. So far as factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record that on the strength of circular/office order No. 446 dated 14.2.1985, the petitioner herein raised industrial dispute with the claim that his service should be regularized and he should be considered permanent workman from the date when he completed 960 days. The claimant raised the said dispute on the premise that though he fulfilled the conditions prescribed by office order/circular No. 446, the benefit of the said circular was not extended in his favour and the board continued to treat him as daily wager/temporary employee. He also claimed that even otherwise, in view of the fact that he served with the opponent board since many years, he was entitled to be regularized in service. He prayed for direction against the board that his service should be regularized from the date on which he completed 960 days.

4.1 The opponent board opposed the claim/reference. In its written statement the Board claimed that since the dispute was raised after inordinate delay the reference should not be entertained. The board also claimed that the petitioner/claimant was not entitled for benefit under the office order/circular No. 446 dated 14.2.1985 inasmuch as he did not fulfill the eligibility criteria/prescribed conditions for availing benefit of the said circular.

4.2 After completion of stage of pleadings, the contesting parties led evidence.

4.3 It appears that during the stage of evidence, the petitioner/claimant submitted an application (Exh. 31) and prayed for direction against the board that the opponent board should place on record attendance register/muster roll for the period from 1984 to 1987 so that he can establish that he had worked for 960 days and that he had worked continuously and regularly. The said application was submitted on the premise that the board did not provide any material/document related to attendance of the workman and therefore, he was unable to place relevant material on record in support of his claim.

4.4 The learned Tribunal considered the said application and reply by the board. The learned Tribunal also considered rival submissions by the parties and vide order dated 31.8.2006, the learned Tribunal rejected the said application (Exh. 31) for the reasons mentioned in the order.

4.5 The learned Tribunal rejected the application essentially on the ground that the application was submitted after long time and the board was neither expected to maintain said record from such period and the board had even