Biren Vaishnav, J.

The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellant who was the original petitioner before the learned Single Judge. By the order dated 31.01.2008, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition and confirmed the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Baroda, in Reference I.T.C. No. 11 of 1999 dated 16.04.2002. By the aforesaid award, the respondent herein was directed to be reinstated in service as a Messenger and on completion of one year was to be placed in the minimum pay-scale. The Industrial Tribunal did not award backwages for the interim period.

2. The facts in brief are as under :

2.1 The respondent-workman was serving as a Messenger with the appellant-Bank. His services were terminated on 31.12.1995. Aggrieved by this, the respondent raised an Industrial dispute which was referred to the tribunal.

2.2 A Statement of Claim was filed by the respondent at Exh.3. It was his case before the Tribunal, that he had joined in the subordinate cadre of the bank as a Messenger with effect from 03.01.1989. He continued in service up to 31.12.1995. Preceding his termination, he worked continuously on daily wages from 01.05.1994 to 31.12.1995 for a period of more than 240 days. In the Statement of Claim, details of the number of days that the respondent had worked from 1989 to 1995 were laid out. A Certificate issued by the bank at Exh.25 for the period from 01.04.1992 to 30.06.1993 was also on record. It was the case of the workman therefore, that since he had worked for a period of more than one year and had rendered continuous service within the meaning of Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, his termination without following the procedure under Section 25F of the Act was bad. Declaration for reinstatement was accordingly sought.

2.3 The appellant bank filed the written reply at Exh.9. That the respondent's service was terminated with effect from 31.12.1995 was denied. According to the bank, the respondent was engaged on a purely temporary and ad-hoc basis as a daily wager and Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was therefore not applicable. The bank further contended that the workman, respondent herein had not completed 240 days.

2.4 The respondent workman produced documents from Exhs. 21 to 26. The respondent workman filed an application, Exh.11 with a request that the bank be directed to produce certain documents showing the number of days, that the respondent workman had worked. By an order at Exh.16, the application was partly allowed. Certain documents were produced at Exh.18.

2.5 The respondent workman filed an affidavit of his deposition at Exh.20. It was contended before the tribunal that the respondent workman had worked for 240 days from 01.04.1994 to 31.12.1995. Learned advocate for the bank contended that there was delay in filing the reference. After termination in 1995, the reference was filed after a period of four years in 1999. It was the contention of the bank that the respondent workman had not produced any evidence of having completed more than 240 days, which burden of proof lay with him.

2.6 The Industrial Tribunal after considering the evidence on the basis of the Certificate at Exh.25, which has been produced before the learned Single Judge, found that the respondent workman had worked for a period of 319 days from April 1992 to June 1993. To the application filed for production of documents, the bank could not produce the same for the period from 01.11.1992 to 31.12.1995 on the ground that the vouchers were more than ten years old. The Industrial Tribunal observed in view of such non production, it was proved that the respondent workman had worked from 01.05.1994 to 31.12.1995 as Messenger. The Industrial Tribunal further held that, in view of such failure by the employer to produce relevant evidence, an adverse inference could be drawn to suggest that the workman had worked for a period of more than 240 days before he was retrenched.