ORDER In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the award dated 18th October, 2011 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2. Dhanbadin Reference Case No. 12 of 1998. In the said award the reference made to the Tribunal has been answered .in negative holding that the workman has failed to prove his claim and that the action of the management of UCO Bank in issuing show-cause notice for disengagement and not absorbing the workman on regular basis is justified in the eye of law and the workman is not entitled to any relief prayed for. 2. According to the petitioner the concerned workman was engaged long back on 28.2.1989. He had worked for 240 days in one calendar year and as per the policy of the management he was entitled to be regularised against the post he has been working. But instead of regularizing him the management issued a notice for his disengagement. The said action of the management gave rise to a dispute which was ultimately referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2. Dhanbad with the following terms of reference:- “Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank in issuing show-cause notice for disengagement of Shri Bipin Kumar Verma from daily wages engagement and in not absorbing the workman on regular basis is Justified? If not to what relief the workman is entitled?" 3. Before the learned Tribunal both the parties appeared. The concerned workman in his written statement reiterated his claim for absorption whereas the management denied the claim and allegation of the concerned workman stating inter alia, that the workman was engaged by an unauthorised official for performing casual job of water career. He was not engaged against any vacant/permanent post and there is no question of regularisation of his service. The circular dated 19.10.1989 which has been sought to be invoked is regarding the workman who is on the roll of the company. The petitioner is not on the roll of the company and the said circular is not applicable to him or to any outsider. 4. Both the parties led their evidences-oral and documentary. 5. Learned Tribunal thoroughly discussed the facts evidences and materials on record and after due consideration came to the finding that the petitioner failed to prove his claim and is not entitled to any relief. 6. 4. Both the parties led their evidences-oral and documentary. 5. Learned Tribunal thoroughly discussed the facts evidences and materials on record and after due consideration came to the finding that the petitioner failed to prove his claim and is not entitled to any relief. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailing the award submitted that the same is lop-sided arbitrary and illegal in as much as learned Tribunal has come to its finding without considering the vital documentary evidences as well as the evidence of W.W.I. whereby the concerned workman has clearly proved that he had worked for 250-260 days i.e. more than the required 240 days in one calendar year. The said evidence has not been properly appreciated by learned Tribunal and the claim of the workman has been erroneously rejected. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent on the other hand submitted that learned Tribunal has elaborately discussed the relevant facts and evidences on record as would be evident from paragraphs-4 to 9 of the award and has come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not engaged by any authorised officer of the bank and his engagement was not against any permanent vacant post. He was not on the roll of the company which is the essential condition for consideration of regularisation of workman. The petitioner's claim falls outside the ambit of the scheme of regularisation and learned Tribunal has rightly held that the petitioner has failed to establish his claim. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. 9. On perusal of the impugned award of learned Tribunal I find that all the relevant facts and the evidences adduced by the parties have been thoroughly discussed and considered and the findings of learned Tribunal are based on evidence and material on record. The concerned workman could not substantiate his claim that his engagement was by any authorised officer of the Bank and was against vacant permanent post. He also failed to prove that he was on the roll of the company. Though in his statement as W.W.I he has claimed that he had worked for 250-260 days that alone does not satisfy the requirement for consideration of absorption/regularisation on a permanent post. 10. He also failed to prove that he was on the roll of the company. Though in his statement as W.W.I he has claimed that he had worked for 250-260 days that alone does not satisfy the requirement for consideration of absorption/regularisation on a permanent post. 10. Learned Tribunal has appreciated the claim on the basis of the evidences and material on record and has recorded sound reasons in support of its findings. 11. I find no ground made out to interfere with the impugned award. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.