JUDGMENT By Court.-Heard Mr. K. B. Sinha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Rina S. Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the concerned workman. 2. The petitioner who is Management of Tata Iron and Steel Company, Jamshedpur assailed the impugned award dated 24.9.94 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Reference case no. 31/89 whereby the reference was answered in favour of the workman and direction was issued for reinstatement of the workman as time keeper with a specified period. 3. It appears that the Govt. of Bihar by Notification referred the following disputes for adjudication to the Labour Court. "Whether not to give work to Shri S. K. Chakrabarti from 1985 by Tata Iron & Steel Company is justified? If not whether he is entitled to reinstatement or any other relief?" 4. The case of the concerned workman in brief is that his father was in the service of the Management and was superannuated in 1972. Under the Scheme and in accordance with Standing Order and the Rules framed for the purpose of giving employment to the sons and daughters of deceased/retired employees, the concerned workman was given temporary employment as Mazdoor in 1975. Thereafter, he worked in different capacity time to time for temporary period and lastly he worked as time keeper till 28.8.85 and thereafter the management stopped taking work from him. The Management's case on the other hand was that the concerned workman was given temporary assignment for limited period and he was never given permanent employment at any point of time. However, it has not been disputed by the management that lastly the concerned workman has worked as time keeper till 28.8.85. When the reference was pending before the" Labour Court although management filed written statement but neither produced any evidence in support of their case nor advanced argument despite the fact that the Labour Court allowed several adjournments for adducing evidence and for advancing argument. Consequently after the evidence was concluded the impugned award was passed by the Labour Court directing the management to reinstate the workman on the post of Time Keeper within the specified period. 5. Mr. K. B. Sinha learned senior counsel mainly assailed the legality and validity of the reference made by the Government. Consequently after the evidence was concluded the impugned award was passed by the Labour Court directing the management to reinstate the workman on the post of Time Keeper within the specified period. 5. Mr. K. B. Sinha learned senior counsel mainly assailed the legality and validity of the reference made by the Government. Learned counsel submitted that the reference itself was not maintainable for the reason that notification was not issued in accordance with demand, notification was not issued in accordance with Section 2A of IInd Schedule of the I.D. Act. It is further contended that the dispute was not raised before the management rather it was raised by the concerned workman to the Deputy Labour Commissioner which is not a demand in accordance with the provisions of Section 2A of the said Act. Section 2A of the said Act in a very clear terms provides that in case of dismissal/discharge/termination of a workman, he can raise industrial dispute directly without seeking aid of Union. The only irregularity that was committed by the petitioner was that he directly made demand to the Deputy Labour Commissioner instead of the Management. In my opinion, the object of raising demand is that it could be resolved by virtue of a conciliation and it is only on the failure of the dispute resolved in conciliation, the matter is sent to the Govt. for making reference in accordance with law. 6. Admittedly in the instant case, notwithstanding the demand raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, a conciliation proceeding was started and on submission of the failure report, a reference was made by the Govt. to the Labour Court for adjudication. In my opinion therefore, because of some irregular procedure was adopted by the petitioner in getting the dispute referred to the Labour Court for adjudication, the entire reference cannot be vitiated in law and it would be held that reference is not maintainable. 7. So far merit of the case is concerned as noticed above, the management not only failed to adduce evidence in support of their case before the Labour Court but declined to advance argument. The concerned workman filed relevant documents in support of their case that from May 1981 to August, 1985 he worked as time keeper and made signature as such in the attendance register. The concerned workman filed relevant documents in support of their case that from May 1981 to August, 1985 he worked as time keeper and made signature as such in the attendance register. The Labour Court by order dated 6.11.90 directed the management to produce these documents particularly attendance register but the management did not produce these documents nor any reason was assigned for non production of these documents. The Labour Court therefore on the basis of evidence came to a conclusion that before the petitioner was stopped to work he continuously worked as time keeper from May, 1981 to August, 1985. I am not supposed to come to a different conclusion particularly when finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court is on the basis of evidence adduced by the workman and in absence of any evidence adduced by the Management. I therefore, do not find any illegality in the award passed by the Labour Court, whereby the management was directed to reinstate the workman to the post of time keeper with full back wages. There is no illegality, perversity or infirmity in the award passed by the Labour Court. This writ application is dismissed.