JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - This appeal is preferred under clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in O. J C. No. 17623 of 1997 in exercise of powers conferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 2. Bereft of all the unnecessary details, the facts as spelt from the inter se pleadings are as followed : On the basis of a report of the Conciliation Officer-cum-Assistant Labour Officer, Puri, the Government of Orissa in Labour and Employment Department was satisfied that an industrial dispute exists between the Management of the Orissa Renewable Energy Development Agency, Bhubaneswar and its workman Shri Dhirendra Mohan Patnaik, respondent No. 3 & in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (5) of section 12 read with clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 considered it expedient to refer for adjudication of the dispute specified in the schedule to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court. Bhubaneswar. For the sake of brevity, the schedule is quoted below : "Whether the termination of services of Sri Dhirendra Mohan Patnaik, by the Management of Orissa Renewable Energy Development Agency (O.R.E.D.A.), by way of refusing employment with effect from 30-4-1990 is legal and/or justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?" The reference is filed and marked as Annexure-7 to the writ application. 3 Before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, respondent No. 3 workman filed a petition stating that he joined as a Technician under the Orissa Renewable Energy Development Agency (hereinafter referred to as the 'O.R.E.D.A.') on 8-1-1987 and worked in the workshop at Mancheswar, Bhubaneswar at the pay scale of Rs. 600/- per month. It is averred that the management directed him to impart training in leaf stitching at different Blocks of the State as an instructor and to teach the specialised method of operation of "leaf stitching machines" supplied by OREDA. In accordance with the direction issued by the OREDA, he reported before the Block Development Officer, Khaparakhol in the district of Bolangir and imparted training from 11-2-1988 till 30-10-1989 at the said Block and thereafter from 11-11-1989 at Patnagarh Block, and thereafter at Belapada Block till 30-4-1990 when the management stopped assigning any work and paying any salary. Such action, according to the workman, amounted 'to illegal termination giving rise to the present dispute. Such action, according to the workman, amounted 'to illegal termination giving rise to the present dispute. On behalf of the OREDA a written statement was filed before the Labour Court inter alia, submitting that the workman was engaged on 8-1-1997 as a contingent helper -on daily-wage basis at the rate of Rs. 20/- per day. He continued till 14-9-1987. He was allowed to take leaf stitching training during the period from 12-10-1987 to 7-11-1987. Thereafter he was directed to report to the Block Development Officer, Khaparakhol in Bolangir district on or before 14-2-1988. It is stated that, though the workman was directed to import training only for a minimum period of two months, he continued in giving training for more than two years i. e. from 18-2-1988 till 30-4-1990 at different places of Bolangir district. It is alleged that the workman imparted training at other places than Khaparakhol on his own interest without any direction from the management. He being a contingent workman, the allegation of termination of services from 30-4-1990 does not arise. It is further averred that the workman was engaged on daily-wage on the pay-scale of 'MAP.', the scheme which was sanctioned by the Government of India for a period of three years and the same has been discontinued and thus, continuance of the services of the petitioner does not arise. The Labour Court on the basis of the pleadings framed three issues. 4. In course of the trial, the workman examined himself as a witness and exhibited two documents. The management, however, neither adduced any oral evidence nor produced any documentary evidence. Considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the Labour Court came to a categorical finding that the workman who had undergone stitching machine trainining from 12-10-1987 to 7-11-1987 was engaged for imparting training to different persons who had purchased leaf stitching machines at the Block level. It was further held that the workman continued in service for more than 240 days in one calendar year without any interruption. The management admitted that the workman was directed to impart training from 14-2-1988 for a minimum period of two months. It also admitted that the workman was imparting training for more than two years, i. e. from 18-2-1988 till 30-4-1990 in other Blocks besides Khaparakhol Block, for which the workman was deputed by the management by a written order. The management admitted that the workman was directed to impart training from 14-2-1988 for a minimum period of two months. It also admitted that the workman was imparting training for more than two years, i. e. from 18-2-1988 till 30-4-1990 in other Blocks besides Khaparakhol Block, for which the workman was deputed by the management by a written order. The plea that the workman was engaged only during 1987 and thereafter his engagement was discontinued was not proved by the management either by adducing oral or documentary evidence. The Labour Court arrived at a categorical finding that, on the circumstances, non-engagement of the workman by the management since 30-4-1990 amounts to termination of service in the eye of law, and directed that the workman should be reinstated in service within one month from the date of notification of the award with full back wages from 4-11-1991 (i.e. the date on which petition was filed by the workman with all ancillary benefits, failing -which, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum till realisation, As has been stated earlier, the said order was impugned before this Court in O. J. C. No. 17623 of 1997. This Court after hearing the parties by order dated 6-9-2000 dismissed the writ petition observing as follows : "It is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner herein (employer) bad not adduced any evidence--Oral or documentry--before the Labour Court where the dispute was pending. Whether the opposite party No. 2 was a workman or not and whether he was being paid salary as a workman or not, are all factual questions which could be decided on the material on record before the Labour Court. Therefore, in case the employer wanted to contest the claim of ' the workman, it was for it to have adduced necessary evidence -- oral or documentary -- before the Labour Court where the dispute was pending. Whether the non-contest was deliberate or due to negligence, is not to be decided by this Court., But, having not adduced any such evidence, the petitioner (employer) cannot be heard on factual aspects in this writ application. That apart, the finding of fact have been arrived at by the Labour Court on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence adduced before it. That apart, the finding of fact have been arrived at by the Labour Court on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence adduced before it. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that no case for interference is made out." 5. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is impugned in this. A. H. O.. We heard Mr. Srinivas Mohanty, learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant-management and Mr. D.P. Nanda, learned counsel on behalf of respondent No. 3-workman. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the management, reiterated the stand taken by the management before the Labour Court as well as before the learned Single Judge and submitted that respondent No. 3 was not a workman under the OREDA, nor he had been employed, or ever been paid any wages as such. It is reiterated that, respondent No. 3 was only a daily-wage helper and was engaged to meet the contingent work-load existing in the Agency for the time being and he worked piecemeal for about eight months only under the appellant. It is further averred that to create awareness in self-employment among the village fold, different rural based technology like leaf stitching, rope making etc. was sponsored by OREDA under the 'MAP' scheme and the respondent No. 3 being interested in the same, acquired training from 12-10-1987 to 7-11-1987 in leaf stitching under the self-employment training programe of the OREDA. Admittedly during the said period, he was paid by the OREDA. It is further averred that since the aforesaid programme is rural based, the Block Development Officers of different Blocks took up steps to train the villagers on leaf stitching and as such, the Block Development Officer. Khaparakhol, requested the OREDA to depute some master trainees to his Block for a period of two months in order to impart training on leaf stitching on a consolidated monthly remuneration of Rs. 500/-. In consequence to the said request, the Engineer-in-charge Training, OREDA recommended the workman-respondent No. 3 to the Block Development Officer, Khaparakhol to imppart training for a period of two months by order dated 9-2-1988 (Annexure-1). A perusal of the said order reveals that the workman was directed to report before the Block Development Officer, Khaparakhol, district Bolangir, on or before 14-2-1988 to impart training on leaf stitching. The letter further reads that, the workman was directed to intimate the OREDA after joining. A perusal of the said order reveals that the workman was directed to report before the Block Development Officer, Khaparakhol, district Bolangir, on or before 14-2-1988 to impart training on leaf stitching. The letter further reads that, the workman was directed to intimate the OREDA after joining. Thus, the OREDA retained a control over the workman. It is the admitted case that, after imparting training under the Block Development Officer, Khaparakhol, respondent No. 3 was directed to impart training at other Blocks till 30-4-1990. 6. The management failed to adduce any oral or documentary evidence in support of the plea taken by them. The-order passed by the Labour Court was challenged before this Court in a certiorari proceeding. Law is well settled that while exercising the powers of superintendence in a certiorari proceeding, this court cannot traverse beyond the materials available on record. On the basis of the available materials, the Labour Court passed an award with which the learned Single Judge declined to interfere in the absence of any cogent materials to reveal that the analysis made and/or the findings arrived at by the Labour Court was either erroneous or contrary to the materials available on record. 7. Mr. Nanda, learned counsel for the workman respondent No. 3, at the thresh-hold submitted that in consonance with clause (15) of the Letters Patent, an order passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of powers of superintendence Under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be appealed against and the A.H.O. is thus not maintainable. He has also submitted that the award passed by the Labour Court is just and proper and the learned Single Judge has rightly declined to interfere with it. 8. In order to give full opportunity to the management, in course of hearing, we called upon the appellant-management to file the minutes of the Review Committee held on 11th and 12th January, 1990 as well as the scheme for Human and Animal Power Devices for Orissa under which, it is submitted, the workman-respondent No. 3 was engaged. Perusal of the minutes of the Review Committee meeting held in the office of the O.RED.A. Bhubaneswar on the above dates reveals that "leaf stitching machine" and the "leaf and plate making machine" were demonstrated to the public in the workshop of the O.RE.D.A. . Perusal of the minutes of the Review Committee meeting held in the office of the O.RED.A. Bhubaneswar on the above dates reveals that "leaf stitching machine" and the "leaf and plate making machine" were demonstrated to the public in the workshop of the O.RE.D.A. . It was reported that beneficiaries wanted co have training in the operation and maintenance of this device so as to prevent mal-functioning during its use. It was informed by the OR.E.DA. officers that at the time of distribution of the system/machine the information with regard to its use operation and maintenance-is given. Apart from that, it is suggested that regular training is also organised for the use in future. After the discussion, the Committee recommended that the trainining regarding operation of the machines should be made a part of the programme at frequent intervals to monitor the field programmes. Further, the documents filed by the petitioner reveal that 150 leaf stitching machines were manufactured and sold by the OR.E.D.A, and that a scheme has been drawn up to train up and sale the same to beneficiaries. It further reveals that the training to the beneficiaries should be through the funds of the District Industries Centre and the training technology will be by the O.R.E.D.A.. The documents filed before this Court clearly reveal that under the scheme nomenclatured as "Human and Animal Power Device", O.RE.D.A had introduced the "leaf stitching machines" and provided the same to remote villagers. The workman, who was admittedly trained by the O.R.E.D.A., was called upon to report before the Block Development Officer, Khaparakhol, Bolangir district, to impart training on leaf stitching machine to villagers as would be evident from Annexure-1. Thereafter, his services ware utilised by different Block Officers for the purpose of imparting training till 30-4-1990. This aspect corroborates the claim of the workman that he was training by the O.R.E.D.A. under a scheme and was deputed to impart training to villagers regarding use of "leaf stitching machine" till 30-4-1990. 9. The discussions made above would clearly reveal that the Labour Court has not committed any error in holding that respondent No. 3 was a workman under the appellant and the learned Single Judge has rightly declined to interfere with the order of the Labour Court in a certiorari proceeding. We also do not find any infirmity or error apparent on the face of the orders requiring our intereference. We also do not find any infirmity or error apparent on the face of the orders requiring our intereference. However perusal of the records reveals that the workman has neither asserted nor proved, or adduced any evidence to show that he was not gainfully employed/engaged after 1991. In absence of pleadings and/or finding, it would not be proper or equitable to direct payment of back wages for a period of more than ten years. The Labour Court has also not given any finding that the workman was not gainfully employed after his termination. In the circumstance, it would be just and reasonable to direct the appellant to pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 25,000/- (rupees twenty-five thousand) to respondent No. 3 within period of three months from the date of communication of this order, instead of full back wages and other ancillary benefits as ordered by the Labour Court. If the aforesaid amount is not paid within the time stipulated, the same will carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum till its reqlisation. 10. With the aforesaid modification, we dismiss the A. H. O.. We, however, express no opinion about the maintainability of the A. H. O. and leave it open to be agitated in a more appropriate case. Pradipta Ray, J. 11. I agree. 12. A. H. O. dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed