JUDGMENT : V.G. ARUN, J.:— The appellant, a Nationalised Bank, is aggrieved by the judgment by which the learned Single Judge turned down the challenge against the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal in I.D. No. 1 of 2005. The Tribunal had found the termination of the 2nd respondent workman to be illegal and directed his reinstatement as casual employee with back wages from the date of termination, i.e., 7.10.2002. 2. The industrial dispute arose under the following circumstances; The 2nd respondent was engaged as peon at the Kothamangalam Branch of the appellant Bank from 4.6.1993 onwards and had continued up to 22.6.1998. Thereafter, he was engaged as casual worker at the Alwaye Branch of the Bank and his services stood terminated with effect from 7.10.2002. The workman initially approached this Court in O.P. No. 29854 of 2002. Pending the original petition, the workman invoked his remedy before the conciliatory authority. Finding no possibility of resolving the dispute through conciliation proceedings, the same was given up. Subsequently, the writ petition was withdrawn and in a final bid, the conciliation proceedings revived, but again without success. Thereafter, the dispute referred for adjudication by the Government at the instance of the workman. 3. In the claim statement filed before the Tribunal the workman had submitted that, while he was working at Kothamangalam, the Regional Manager of the Bank had, with intention of absorbing him, forwarded a format inviting particulars of all casual workers in the branch. The Senior Branch Manager, Kothamangalam had filled up the format indicating that the workman had been engaged as a peon from 27.9.1993 onwards. It was submitted that pursuant to a meeting held on 9.1.1998, between the management of the Bank and the representatives of the employees Union, it was agreed that action would be taken to regularise the service of casual workers, for which purpose a list of such workers had been drawn up. In accordance with the agreement, the Bank had sent communications to all Branch Managers, seeking confirmation of details of the casual workers, whose names had been forwarded earlier. In the covering letter issued in reply to the circular, the Senior Manager, Alwaye had specifically stated that the workman had worked for more than the required number of days, but the payments having been made under different names, those days were excluded while computing the total number of working days. In the covering letter issued in reply to the circular, the Senior Manager, Alwaye had specifically stated that the workman had worked for more than the required number of days, but the payments having been made under different names, those days were excluded while computing the total number of working days. It was submitted that, while the process of regularisation of the workman was being finalised, his service was abruptly terminated with effect from 7.10.2002. 4. The management filed a written statement refuting the claim of the workman. According to the Bank, the competent authority for sanctioning regular posts in the subordinate staff cadre is the General Manager (HRM) and the appointing authority is the Assistant General Manager of the respective regions. The Branch Managers are not the sanctioning or appointing authorities and hence the casual engagement by the Branch Managers did not confer any right for regularisation on the workman. It was stated that the workman was engaged only during the absence of the permanent incumbent on account of leave or absence. It was admitted that the workman was intermittently engaged as casual worker on daily wage basis at the Kothamangalam Branch for few days in 1993-1994 and at the Alwaye Branch during 1998, but never for 240 or more days. It was hence contended that the disengagement of the workman by the Branch Manager cannot be termed as illegal termination. 5. In an attempt to prove his case, the workman had filed I.A. No. 84 of 2006, seeking production of nine documents by the Bank. By proceedings dated 21.2.2007, the Tribunal directed the management to produce the documents or to file affidavit. of the nine documents sought to be produced, the management produced only three documents and undertook to produce the other documents as and when they are received or to file an affidavit explaining the reason for non-production. But contrary to the undertaking, the documents were not produced or an affidavit filed. The evidence of the workman consisted of his oral testimony and that of two other witnesses and nine documents. The management did not examine any witness or mark documents. 6. Based on the evidence tendered and the contentions advanced, the Tribunal found that the worker was engaged at the Alwaye Branch for 482 days between 23.6.1998 and 5.4.2001, out of which the engagement from 1.11.1999 to 5.4.2001 was for 410 days without break. The management did not examine any witness or mark documents. 6. Based on the evidence tendered and the contentions advanced, the Tribunal found that the worker was engaged at the Alwaye Branch for 482 days between 23.6.1998 and 5.4.2001, out of which the engagement from 1.11.1999 to 5.4.2001 was for 410 days without break. The Tribunal drew adverse inference against the management for non-production of the documents and failure to file affidavit, as had been undertaken. The Tribunal therefore proceeded to hold that the available evidence, both oral and documentary, was sufficient to prove that the workman was engaged continuously for a period of more than 240 days during a period of one year prior to his termination on 7.10.2002. Referring to Sections 25F and 25B(a)(ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Tribunal held the termination of the workman, without compliance of the mandatory requirement under Section 25F, to be illegal and directed to reinstate the workman in service in the status of casual employee, with back wages from the date of termination. 7. The finding of the Tribunal as to violation of Section 25F was challenged in the writ petition on the ground that the casual engagement of the workman was by an incompetent authority and hence his disengagement could not be termed as either retrenchment or termination. It was contended that even if termination of the workman was found to be illegal, it would not automatically result in reinstatement with back wages, since the Tribunal could remedy the illegality by directing payment of compensation. 8. The learned Single Judge considered the contentions and held that there was evidence before the Tribunal to show that the petitioner was engaged for 410 days continuously from 1.11.1999 to 5.4.2001. It was held that going by Section 25B, the engagement of the worker for a period of 240 days can be at any time preceding the date with reference to which calculation was to be made. The contention that, the Tribunal should have directed payment of compensation instead of reinstatement was repelled by observing that the long service rendered by a casual worker cannot be ignored. Based on the findings, the writ petition was dismissed. 9. The contention that, the Tribunal should have directed payment of compensation instead of reinstatement was repelled by observing that the long service rendered by a casual worker cannot be ignored. Based on the findings, the writ petition was dismissed. 9. In this appeal, the finding of the learned Single Judge that, for the purpose of Section 25B, continuous service reckoned for 240 days within a period of 12 months any time during the service can be reckoned is challenged on the ground that the finding is opposed to the specific wording in Section 25B. It is contended that there was absolutely no evidence before the Tribunal to conclude that the workman had rendered continuous service for 240 days during the 12 months preceding his alleged date of termination, i.e., 7.10.2002. The adverse inference drawn against the management for non production of the documents is challenged on the ground that burden was upon the workman to prove his claim. 10. Heard Sri. M.N. Radhakrishna Menon, the learned counsel for the appellant Bank and Sri. Paulson C. Varghese, the learned counsel appearing for the workman. 11. In elaboration of the contentions raised in the writ appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the workman having failed to prove that he had been in continuous service till 7.10.2002, the Tribunal committed an illegality in finding fault with the management for non-production of the documents. It is contended that the requirement under Section 25B is of the workman having worked for a period of one year during a period of 12 calender months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made and that in the instant case, 7.10.2002 being the crucial date, the learned Single Judge committed an illegality in finding that the 12 months during which the workman had worked continuously prior to his disengagement, can be of any period prior to his disengagement. The contention that, every finding of illegal termination or retrenchment need not result in a direction for reinstatement with back wages and the illegality can be corrected by payment of compensation, is reiterated by the learned counsel. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent refuted the contentions and submitted that the documents, of which production was sought for by the workman, were in the exclusive possession of the management. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent refuted the contentions and submitted that the documents, of which production was sought for by the workman, were in the exclusive possession of the management. It is submitted that the management had filed a statement in reply to the interlocutory application seeking production of documents, stating that the management was in possession of only three out of the nine documents and had undertaken to either produce the rest of the documents or to file an affidavit stating the reasons for non-production. It is pointed out that, contrary to the undertaking, the management did not produce the documents or file an affidavit. It is contended that the documents, if produced, would have shown that the appellant had continued in service till 7.10.2002 and hence the Tribunal was justified in drawing an adverse inference against the appellant. The learned counsel further contended that the interpretation of Section 25B by the learned Single Judge was correct and that, even otherwise, there was sufficient material to show that the workman had been in service continuously for 240 days within a period of 12 months preceding the date of termination. Attention is drawn to Exhibit R2(g) communication dated 17.7.2001 wherein the Branch Manager, Alwaye had noted that the workman is reported to have worked at Kothamangalam Branch from 4.6.1993 and had worked at the Alwaye Branch for a period of 482 days between 23.6.1998 to 5.4.2001. In the covering letter appended to Exhibit R2(g) format, the Branch Manager had stated that the workman had been engaged for certain other periods also, which were not taken into account for computing the total number of days. It is submitted that the minutes of the structured meeting held on 9.1.1998 between the management and the representatives of the Bank of Baroda Staff Union, produced at Exhibit R2(h) will go to show that the management had drawn up a list of casual workers eligible for regularisation. It is submitted that the documents withheld by the Bank would have shown that the process had continued unabated and if the workman had been allowed to continue, his service would have been regularised. That the abrupt termination of the workman, without following the prescribed procedure, entitles the workman for reinstatement with back wages. 13. It is submitted that the documents withheld by the Bank would have shown that the process had continued unabated and if the workman had been allowed to continue, his service would have been regularised. That the abrupt termination of the workman, without following the prescribed procedure, entitles the workman for reinstatement with back wages. 13. The contention of the Bank that the workman was engaged at the Kothamangalam Branch only for few days when the regular incumbent was on leave, has to be examined in the light of the evidence tendered. The workman, while tendering evidence as WW1, had stated that he had worked at the Kothamangalam Branch from 1993 to 1998. Exhibit W1 is the format dated 16.3.1994 filled up by the Branch Manager, Kothamangalam providing the details of casual workers at the branch, as requested by the Regional Manager. In Exhibit W1 the petitioner is shown to have been doing the sundry work of peon at the branch from 27.9.1993 onwards. It is also noted that the workman is being engaged after giving a break after 80 working days. Exhibit W3 is the communication issued by the Branch Manager to the Postmaster, Head Post Office, Aluva requesting to hand over the letters addressed to the branch to the workman, who was authorised to collect the same. The two independent witnesses examined on the side of the workman stated that they had accounts with the Kothamangalam Branch of the Bank and had found the workman engaged in duty, whenever they went to the branch. Hence, the evidence, both oral and documentary, belie the case of the management that the workman was engaged only for very few days at the Kothamangalam Branch. 14. The evidence regarding the workman's engagement at Alwaye Branch consist of Exhibit W5, the covering letter dated 17.7.2001 and the format, stating that the workman had been engaged for 482 days during the period from 23.6.1998 to 5.7.2001, out of which from 1.11.1999 to 5.7.2001 the workman was engaged continuously for 410 days. 15. The only other factual issue was as to whether the workman had continued up to 7.10.2002, as claimed by him. In order to prove this claim, the workman had sought production of certain documents, which were in the exclusive custody of the Bank. 15. The only other factual issue was as to whether the workman had continued up to 7.10.2002, as claimed by him. In order to prove this claim, the workman had sought production of certain documents, which were in the exclusive custody of the Bank. Out of the nine documents, of which production was sought, the management produced only three documents and gave an evasive statement that the remaining documents are not seen in the file maintained at the Bank. It was undertaken that, as and when the documents are received or confirmation regarding the status of the documents received, the documents would either be produced or an affidavit filed explaining the position. In spite of the undertaking, the documents were not produced or an affidavit filed. It is pertinent to note that the management had no case that the documents were irrelevant for considering the workman's claim or that the workmen could access the documents otherwise. It was in such circumstances that the Tribunal drew an adverse inference that the documents, if produced, would have been in the workman's favour. It was in the above factual background that the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge held that the workman had been engaged till 7.10.2002 and his service was abruptly terminated, without following the prescribed procedure. We find no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal in this regard. Therefore it has become unnecessary to decide the question as to whether crucial period for determining the claim under Section 25(2)(a) is the period preceding the date of retrenchment/termination or not. 16. We find no reason to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the learned Single Judge, to find that the workman is entitled to be reinstated with back wages, rather than being paid compensation; on the reasoning supplied by us herein above. In the result the writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.