JUDGMENT : 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. 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 otherwise not maintained the record (attendance register) pertaining to past period. The learned Tribunal noticed that the request for documents related to the period from 1984 to 1987 and the demand was made somewhere in July/August, 2006 i.e. after almost 20 years, and that therefore, such direction cannot be passed. 4.6 Thereafter, reference proceeded further. The learned Tribunal noticed that the request for documents related to the period from 1984 to 1987 and the demand was made somewhere in July/August, 2006 i.e. after almost 20 years, and that therefore, such direction cannot be passed. 4.6 Thereafter, reference proceeded further. The parties placed oral evidence on record and upon conclusion of such evidence, the learned Tribunal heard the parties and thereafter, passed final award and having regard to the fact that the claimant failed to justify his demand, the learned Tribunal rejected the reference. Feeling aggrieved by the said award, the claimant has taken out present petition. 5. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioner, assailed the order dated 31.8.2006 and submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the documents demanded by the claimant were very material and relevant for the adjudication of the reference. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the demand raised by the petitioner/claimant for regularization in service on the premise that the claimant had worked for 960 days before he raised demand and that therefore, he was entitled for regularization in service in light of Circular/Office Order No. 446 dated 14.2.1985 and that, therefore, the attendance register which would establish the attendance (working days) of the petitioner, were vital to the case of the petitioner and that, therefore, the said application ought to have been allowed by the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal committed material error in rejecting the application without appreciating the fact that the documents were very vital. 6. Ordinarily this Court would have, but for the situation and circumstances that obtain in present case, accepted petitioner's contention because the onus to prove the fact relevant for succeeding in the claim is on the workman and that, therefore, the claimant should establish that he had worked for 960 days, however so that the employee can discharge said burden, the employer must provide attendance card/wage slip etc. Whereas, in present case the claimant asserted that the Board did not provide any document to the petitioner during tenure of his service and, the Board, on the other hand, did not accept his request to place on record the attendance register without denying the allegation that documents were not provided and/or without establishing that said documents were provided to all workmen. 7. 7. In this view of the matter, the Board caused double jeopardy for the claimant and the Board created a situation whereby the petitioner's claim would be frustrated for want of relevant documents because the documents were, undisputedly, in exclusive possession of the Board. 8. Of course, so far as the issue related to abnormal delay in demanding the documents is concerned, the case stands on different footing. On that count, Tribunal's decision cannot be faulted. So far as reply of the Board and the decision by the learned Tribunal with regard to Exh-31 are concerned, long delay of 20 years vitiates the claimant's demand. The employer cannot be expected to maintain attendance registers/wage register, for such long period (Unless any obligation is expressly imposed by law). The claimant raised dispute after abnormal and inordinate delay and he, in present case, demanded the document after the evidence was closed. Thus, subsequent delay, multiplied initial delay. Had the claimant raised the dispute and demand for the documents within reasonable time after completing attendance for 960 days, the case would stand on different footing. However, not in present case. 9. With reference to final Award, Mr. Mishra, learned advocate also submitted that after having rejected the application seeking production of relevant documents, the learned Tribunal rejected the main Reference on the ground that the claimant failed to establish that he had worked for 960 days. He submitted that if Exh-31 Application had been granted and if the documents had been placed on record then the petitioner would have been able to establish before the learned Tribunal that he had worked for 960 days. According to Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for petitioner, the learned Tribunal committed error in rejecting the award on the ground that the claimant failed to establish relevant facts. 10. On strength of such submission, learned advocate for petitioner/claimant submitted that both the orders deserve to be set aside and the proceedings required to be remanded to learned Tribunal for fresh consideration after directing the Board to place on record relevant documents. 11. Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the Board opposed the submission and the petition. He submitted that reference was barred by inordinate delay inasmuch as such dispute came to be raised by the claimant in 1998 i.e. after delay of 10 years. 11. Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the Board opposed the submission and the petition. He submitted that reference was barred by inordinate delay inasmuch as such dispute came to be raised by the claimant in 1998 i.e. after delay of 10 years. He further submitted that not only the claimant caused delay in raising the dispute for almost 10 years but having raised the dispute in 1998, the claimant submitted Exh-31 Application for the first time in or around July, 2006 i.e. after further delay of 8 years and in 2006 the claimant demanded 20 years old documents i.e. attendance register for the period from 1984-87. He further submitted that said Application (Exh-31) was submitted after stage of oral and documentary evidence was concluded. Mr. Dave submitted that the learned Tribunal rejected the Application for the reason mentioned in the order and that therefore the said order cannot be said to be illegal, unjust or arbitrary and it does not warrant any interference. Mr. Dave, learned advocate further submitted that the claimant's demand was singularly based on Circular/Office Order No. 446 dated 14.2.1988, however the terms and conditions mentioned in the Circular make it clear that the petitioner was not eligible for availing benefit of the said Circular because it did not fulfill the condition prescribed under Circular No. 446. He also submitted that the claimant failed to establish that he had worked for 960 days and that therefore his demand for regularization was not justified. According to Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the Board, there is no error in final award and learned Tribunal has recorded sufficient and cogent reasons on the basis of evidence available on record and therefore the award does not warrant any interference. 12. After completing the submission on merit of the case, Mr. Dave further submitted that in view of the fact which emerged from the evidence of the claimant, the demand raised by the claimant is actually rendered infructuous and the demand/dispute raised by the claimant does not deserve adjudication and in any case the claimant's pursuit for assailing the award, is even otherwise, not justified. Dave further submitted that in view of the fact which emerged from the evidence of the claimant, the demand raised by the claimant is actually rendered infructuous and the demand/dispute raised by the claimant does not deserve adjudication and in any case the claimant's pursuit for assailing the award, is even otherwise, not justified. He further submitted that the service of the claimant was according to his own claim and admission, terminated in May, 1987 and that therefore, the demand for regularization in service does not survive inasmuch as the petitioner ceased to be in employment with the Board from May, 1987. However, Mr. Mishra declared "no instruction, no information and no knowledge" with regard to said submission. 13. In light of the said submission by Mr. Dave and Mr. Mishra, learned advocates, this Court had adjourned the proceedings on previous occasion to enable Mr. Dave and Mr. Mishra to seek instruction from the Board and from the claimant about the said factual aspect. 14. During further hearing of this petition, Mr. Mishra learned advocate informed that he could not get "confirmed" information from the petitioner. However, Mr. Dave learned advocate for Board reiterated said submission and he, on further confirmation from Board Officer, again asserted that the petitioner is not in service with the Board. 15. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary for the Court to enter into and decide rival contentions and/or to decide the dispute with regard to legality or sustainability of the order dated 31.8.2006 passed below Exh-31 Application and/or the final award dated 9.2.2007. 16. When the petitioner/claimant is not in service and according to his own statement in the deposition before learned Tribunal, his service came to be discontinued in May, 1987, obviously the demand for regularization in service would not survive. 17. Even the documents placed on record at Annexure C reflects the claimant's attendance upto May, 1987. The claimant has failed to place on record of this Petition any material which would demonstrate that the claimant has been in service after May, 1987. 18. Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the Board amplified the statement by the petitioner in deposition (Annexure E of the petition Exh-15 before the learned Tribunal) wherein the claimant stated, during his deposition, that his service was discontinued in May, 1987. The said action viz. termination from service is not subject matter of this petition. 18. Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the Board amplified the statement by the petitioner in deposition (Annexure E of the petition Exh-15 before the learned Tribunal) wherein the claimant stated, during his deposition, that his service was discontinued in May, 1987. The said action viz. termination from service is not subject matter of this petition. In this background, the demand for and the dispute with regard to regularization, cannot be and does not survive. Consequently, the Reference and dispute and the challenge against the award are rendered infructuous. 19. In this view of the matter, actually the proceedings before the learned Tribunal and consequently the petition itself are rendered infructuous even at the initial stage. 20. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is not in service with the respondent Board since May, 1987, the claim for regularization cannot survive and that therefore there is neither any need nor any justification to decide the claimant's regularization of service and/or to decide the issue that learned Tribunal has committed any error in rejecting the demand of regularization. 21. Therefore, following order is passed: In view of the fact mentioned above, more particularly since the petitioner is not in service since May, 1987, the demand for regularisation in service is rendered infructuous and cannot be entertained and granted and therefore, the petition fail and deserves to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. Rule is discharged.