Judgment M. Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ aptheplication the petitioner has challenged the Award dated 10-5-1994 passed by the Presiding Officer, Jamshedpur, in reference Case No.3 of 1991 whereby and whereunder the Labour Court held that the termination of services of the respondent No.2 by the Management was not justified and therefore, he was directed to be re-instated with full back wages and other benefits. 2. It appears that the Government of Bihar by its notification dated 27-12-1990 referred the following dispute for adjudication by the Labour Court. "whether the termination of services of Shri Dhrub Narayan Singh, electrician/operator, Bihar Sponge Iron limited, is justified? If not, whether the workmen is entitled to re-instatement in the service and/or any other relief. " 3. The case of the concerned workman was that he joined the service of M/s. Bihar Sponge Iron Ltd. on and from 21-9-1987 as Electrician-cum operator at Chandil Plant site of the management at the initial salary of Rs.6257- per month. At the time of joining the services of the workman the plant site of the management factory was in its infancy stage. The workman used to do the work of Electrician, operate 320 kva DG set installed at the plant site, operate 125 KVA DG set installed in the Housing Colony located at the disthetance of around 1 Km. from plant site and also work, attend and make operathetions in 33 KVA. sub-Station near the plant site. Log Books used to be mainthetained in respect of the DG Sets and in 33 KVA. sub-Station and the workman used to make entries in the Log Books. The workman being sincere and hard worker used to work for minimum 16 hours a day at times continuously for 3/4 days without extra wages or compenthesatory allowance. The workman was althelotted accommodation in the management Companys Colony and was allowed to avail bus facility provided by the Company. The factory of the company was to be commissioned from 26-1-1989 for which hectic preparation were going on. The workman had to work continuously for days together prior to 26-1-1989 without any proper arrangement for fcod, sleep and even drinking water. Due to want of the above facility the workman fell seriously sick and remained under the Medical treatment, of Dr. Kameshwar Mishra, authorised medical Officer of the Company and doctor in MGM Hospital, Jamshedpur from 26-1-1989 to 22-2-1989. Due to want of the above facility the workman fell seriously sick and remained under the Medical treatment, of Dr. Kameshwar Mishra, authorised medical Officer of the Company and doctor in MGM Hospital, Jamshedpur from 26-1-1989 to 22-2-1989. Informathetion to the above effect was sent to the company by the workman alongwith unfit Certificate. The workman was declared fit by the said Doctor for atteding to his work from 23-2-1989 and accordingly the workman went to report for work to his superior, Chief Engineer (Electrical), who told him that he would not keep any Bihari with him and the service of the workman stands tertheminated. The workman was not issued with any charge-sheet. No enquiry was conducted and was not guilty of any misconduct. The termination of services has not been communicated in writing to the workman by the management hence termination is void ab inito and the workman is entitled to reinstatethement with full back wages. It is further case of the concerned workman that he received a verbal information through the driver of the management that he has been called by Chief Executive, works-cum-General Manager and Perthesonal manager at Chandil Works Office alongwith original paper and he would be allowed to join his duty. The workman went to Chandil Office on the next day morning with all original paper. After going there the workman first met Mr. Sethi, who directed him to see Mr. U. S. Prasad. As directed by Shri sethi the workman went towards the chamber of Shri U. S. Prasad, Personal manager located in Project Building, where he saw that about 10 to 15 musclemen with bow, arrows and lathis were standing there. Shri U. S. Prasad demanded all the paper from the possession of the workman which he handed him over. Shri Prasad then gave two sheets of paper to the workman and asked him to resign and also to give declaration that he has received full and final settlement of his account with the company. The workman became surprised and refused to oblige him and demanded the original paper kept by him. Shri Prasad threatened him saying that he would not be allowed to go out unless he gives in writing according to his dictates. On hearing the above statethements of Shri Prasad, the workman became nervous and he wrote under threat of his life. The workman became surprised and refused to oblige him and demanded the original paper kept by him. Shri Prasad threatened him saying that he would not be allowed to go out unless he gives in writing according to his dictates. On hearing the above statethements of Shri Prasad, the workman became nervous and he wrote under threat of his life. According to the workman, he never tendered resignation voluntarily rather it was under threat of his life and pressure from Shri Prasad and he has not received single farthing. So far towards settlement dues from the management. On the other hand case of the management was that the workman took his final dues on 19-3-1990 and in view of this no Industrial Disputes existed in the eye of law. According to the management, the workman was employed in 1989 purely as a temporary electrician Trainee. The workman did not acquire the status of permanent employees during the completion of the project or before the Commissioning of the Factory as he did not work for the requisite numbers of day in a calendar year of acquiring the status of the permanent employee. Further case of the management was that during the course of his employment he did not show the certificate of electrician granted by ITI as claimed by him. Further case of the management was that without informing the management the workman abandoned his service from January1989. 4. The Labour Court formulated the following points for consideration. (i) Whether the workman Shri dhrub Narayan Singh was appointed by the management of Bihar Sponge Iron ltd. . (ii) Whether the workman abandoned his service from January 1989 as claimed by the Management or whether the workman was not allowed to join his duty as claimed by the workman. (iii) Whether the workman is enthetitled to reinstatement or any other relief. 5. The Labour Court after considering the evidence both oral and documentary adduced by the workman and management came to a finding that the workman was appointed by the management company and he was working in the said company since 1987. Labour Court further after considering the entire facts and the evidence came to a finding that the concerned workman did not abandoned his service rather, he was not allowed to join his duties by the management. Labour Court further after considering the entire facts and the evidence came to a finding that the concerned workman did not abandoned his service rather, he was not allowed to join his duties by the management. It further held that the workman did not acquire the status of a permanent employee. Lastly the Labour Court held that the concerned workman did work continuously from September 1987 till january, 1989 when he fell ill and he will be deemed to have acquired the status of permanent employees of the management company. Labour Court by impugned award directed the management to re-instate the workman with full back wages. 6. Mr. M. M. Banerjee learned counsel for the petitioner-management firstly submitted that the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is contrary to law and the facts and evidence on record. Counsel further submitted that the finding of the labour Court that by reason of the fact that the workman worked for more than 240 days he attained the status of a permanent employee is wholly misconceived. Learned Counsel also submitted that the Labour Court has not given any finding that the resignation tendered by the workman was obtained by force. According to the learned Counsel, the concerned workman was employed as casual workman and, therefore, the question of holding any enquiry against him for the voluntarily abandonment of job did not and could not arise. Counsel then submitted that the Labour court has not decided issue in its right perspective and the findings arrived at by the Labour Court are perverse in law. 7. On the other hand, Mr. VP. Singh learned Counsel for the concerned workman firstly submitted that the Labour Court after considering the entire facts and evidence on record came to a definite findings that there was no abandonment of service by the workman and he did not resign from service. Referring to Annexure-1 learned Counsel submitted that the said documents does not speak about final settlement rather it is a receipt of payment dues for extra work and medical benefit. Learned Counsel further submitted that in view of the findings of the fact by the Labour Court, he should not interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of india. 8. Learned Counsel further submitted that in view of the findings of the fact by the Labour Court, he should not interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of india. 8. The only question, therefore, in my view arises for consideration is as to whether the workman concerned was employed as casual workman or he was working continuously since the date of his appointment. The Labour Court after considering the entire evidence on record found that the workman was appointed by a valid letter of appointment dated 15-9-1987 as a temporary electrician. The Labour Court further came to a finding with reference to Exts.6 to 7 that the concerned workman was allowed all facilities including the allotment of quarter and bus service facility. It was a specific case of the workman that he worked continuously from september, 1987 till January, 1989 and in support of that Attendance register, wage register and other documents were called for from the Management and despite the specific order passed by the labour Court these documents were not produced. The Labour Court, therefore, rightly came to a conclusion that the concerned workman worked continuously from September, 1987 till january, 1989. The stand taken by the management was that the workman did not work for 240 days in a calendar year. As stated above an adverse interference was drawn against the management for non-production of all the documents and the stand of the management of not accepting. 9. Further case of the management was that the workman voluntarily abandoned his service and received all his dues. From perusal of Annexure-1 which was filed by the management before the Labour Court it appears that he does not speak about abandonment of his service. The Labour Court rightly held that by Annexure-1 (Ext. M/3) the workman received the same amount of his dues which is not a document of full and final settlement of a permanent employee of the management company. Admittedly the Management has not come with a case that the service of the workman was terminated by giving three months notice or pay in lieu thereof. In absence of that the Labour Court was right in holding that the workman was not allowed to join service. 10. Admittedly the Management has not come with a case that the service of the workman was terminated by giving three months notice or pay in lieu thereof. In absence of that the Labour Court was right in holding that the workman was not allowed to join service. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the finding of fact arrived at by the Labour Court after appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties, I do not find any reason to interfere with the award of the Labour Court. This application is accordingly dismissed. Application Dismissed.