JUDGMENT C.K. Prasad, J. 1. By this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated January 15, 1988 (Annexure-D) passed by the Labour Court, whereby it had directed for payment of difference of wages to the petitioner from August 1, 1981 till October 1985. 2. According to the workman respondent No. 2 he was deputed by the petitioner i.e. the employer to perform the duty in place of one C.J. Singh, Foreman Grade B on his transfer to other colliery on August 1, 1991. It is his assertion that he has worked continuously in place of C.J. Singh since August 1, 1981 and although he is entitled to receive payment of wages from August 1, 1981 to October 1985 in technical Grade B instead of technical Grade C amounting to Rs. 3600, but the same has not been paid to him. On the basis of the aforesaid assertion, he filed application before the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Stand of the employer in the aforesaid proceedings was that petitioner has not worked continuously in place of C.J. Singh since August 1, 1981. 3. Mr. Menon appears on behalf of the petitioner whereas respondent No. 2 is represented by Ms. Rao. Mr. Menon contends that the Labour Court exceeded in its jurisdiction in deciding the entitlement of the petitioner to receive the difference of wages, as such power is not conferred on the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. On appreciation of evidence and the materials placed before it, the Labour Court has found that the petitioner has worked in place of C. J. Singh since August 1, 1981. It is well settled that this Court while exercising its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, does notappraise evidence and interferes with the findings of fact only when it is shown that the same is perverse. I am of the opinion that the finding recorded by the Labour Court that the workman has worked since August 1, 1981 is based on relevant materials. That being so, respondent No. 2 was entitled for payment of the difference of wages. I do not find any error in the order impugned. 4. In the result, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed. That being so, respondent No. 2 was entitled for payment of the difference of wages. I do not find any error in the order impugned. 4. In the result, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. Security amount, if deposited, shall be refunded to the petitioner.