M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has suffered an award passed dated 21-11-1984 by the 1st respondent, the Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Bangalore, published in the Gazette dated 9-8-1984. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is II Party-Management of M/s. Kirloskar Systems Ltd. , Bangalore. On 9-1-1985 this Court returned the papers for some defects in it, and it was represented. After the delay was condoned, this Court directed the petition to be posted for preliminary hearing on 19-4-1985. However, nothing transpired on the subsequent dates till 8-7-1985. On 8-7-1985 this Court directed to call for records and to post one week thereafter. On 25-7-1985 interim stay was granted. Thereafter, the matter came up on 11-9-1986. On 11-9-1986 this Court after hearing the matter for some time stayed awarding of back wages in the impugned Award. Thereafter, the matter dragged on in this Court which is a sad reflection on our justice dispensation system. ( 3 ) FROM the order sheet it is seen that other orders were passed in the interregnum, to some of which I will make a reference in the course of this order. ( 4 ) ONE of the main reasons why this petition has not been disposed of is that the parlies had engaged themselves in adjudicating the matter, which did not directly arise for consideration, having regard to the limited scope in the matter of disposal of the writ petition. The fact is that the matter had been heard on merits in the course of last two or three weeks, subject to availability of time. ( 5 ) THE undisputed facts tn the writ petition are as follows: A reference came to be made in terms of Section 10 (l) (c) of the Industrial disputes Act, by the State Government, and the points of dispute referred were as follows: ( 21 ) THEREFORE, having regard to the oral evidence presented on both sides, the Labour Court has chosen to accept the evidence of the workmen instead of that of the management to come to a finding in favour of workmen. ( 22 ) UNDOUBTEDLY, the Management has pointed out lapses on the part of the counsel who represented them before the Labour Court as well as this Court and it was those lapses which made the petitioner to approach this Court. ( 22 ) UNDOUBTEDLY, the Management has pointed out lapses on the part of the counsel who represented them before the Labour Court as well as this Court and it was those lapses which made the petitioner to approach this Court. It may be so, or it may not be so. But having engaged a counsel, his lapses, if any, must be held to be lapses of the Management and for that reasons I cannot set aside the Award. ( 23 ) IN other words, the procedure and reasoning adopted in appreciating the evidence is satisfactory from the point of view of the rules of evidence to which we are accustomed. In that view of the matter I am not inclined to interfere with the award. The workmen have been undoubtedly, employed for a long period in different capacities. Admittedly, they do not constitute, what may be presumed to be casual workmen as judicially decided. For instance some of the workmen have worked in weaving division of the petitioner's company, some others have worked hi the watch-and-ward, and some others have worked as supervisors. How casual workers may do such work is not explained having regard to the activities carried on by the establishment of the company. ( 24 ) THEREFORE, the Labour Court correctly came to the conclusion that the workmen may be treated as permanent workmen who were refused work which amounted to termination of their services. I, therefore, unhesitatingly, dismiss this writpetition as devoid of merit, subject to the observations made earlier in regard to the rights of the parties and in regard to the settlement of accounts in terms of the award in proceedings under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act. ( 25 ) THE amount in deposit in this Court will be transferred to the Labour Court to enable it to disburse the same in terms of its final order in the pending proceedings. Order accordingly. --- *** --- .