JUDGMENT - R.J. KOCHAR, J.:---The present petition has arisen from an order dated 7-10-1994 passed by the Presiding Officer, Third Labour Court, Thane in an application filed by the respondent workman under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming wages and other benefits from 2-8-1978 to 5-5-1980. According to the respondent/workman he was reporting for work and was not allowed to attend his duties by the petitioner employer and, therefore, he was entitled to get wages for the said period and other benefits such as bonus, leave wages etc. It was the case of the petitioner employer that the workman was not reporting for work and therefore was not entitled to any wages. Both the parties adduced their respective oral evidence before the Labour Court. I am strictly confining to the claim and the case of the respondent-workman in respect of his wages from 2-8-1978 to 5-5-1980. I am not concerned with any other facts of the case in respect of absence or over staying without sanction of leave etc. Both the parties had adduced their oral evidence before the Labour Court and the Labour Court accepted oral version of the workman that he was reporting for work and that he was not allowed to join his duties. The findings of the Labour Court are thus based on the oral evidence of the workman. The Labour Court has not accepted the oral version of the petitioner employer. The evidence was word against word and the Labour Court has accepted one version as plausible and acceptable to it. I do not think that I can sit in appeal over the said findings and conclusions of the Labour Court under extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings of the Labour Court. It is not possible to believe the version that an employee in employment for a long period would voluntarily remain absent and risk his valuable job. I also believe the fact that the workman must have reported for work and the petitioner-employer's officers might have not allowed the workman to join his duties for one or the other reasons. It is not possible to believe the version that an employee in employment for a long period would voluntarily remain absent and risk his valuable job. I also believe the fact that the workman must have reported for work and the petitioner-employer's officers might have not allowed the workman to join his duties for one or the other reasons. I do not enter into that controversy as I have already held that the findings of the Labour Court are based on facts and evidence before it and nothing was pointed out by Shri Sawant to show that such findings are baseless and perverse. In these circumstances the petition fails and rule is discharged. No order as to costs. Petition fails. -----