ANJANI KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) BY means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-employer, U. P. State Sugar Corporation Limited, Unit Amroha, district Moradabad, challenges the award of the Labour Court, Rampur, dated 3rd June, 1996 passed in Adjudication case No. 9 of 1993. ( 2 ) THE following dispute was referred by the State Government under Section 4k of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the labour court for adjudication :. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). . ( 3 ) THE parties have exchanged their pleadings, adduced their oral and documentary evidence before the labour court and on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the labour court framed the following issues as preliminary issues ; (1) Whether the present dispute is not an industrial dispute? (2) Whether the union said to have been elected in the year 1986 is disputed since there a dispute is pending decision of this Court and in this view of the matter, the reference does not require any answer? (3) Whether the State Government has legally referred the matter or not? ( 4 ) ALL the three preliminary issues were decided against the employer and thereafter the matter was heard by the labour court on merits. The order on the preliminary issue has not been questioned before this Court by means of the present writ petition. ( 5 ) ON merits, the employers have set up the case that the concerned workman was entrusted with the job of Store Clerk after the retirement of Sri Ram Gulam Sharma as would be clear from the joint inspection of the E. S. I. that the concerned workman has worked with effect from 1. 8. 1988 to 31st December, 1988 and then again from 1st January, 1989 to 31st December, 1989 and 1st january, 1990 to 31st December 1990, the total whereof comes to 151 days, 332 days and 348 days and again from 1st January, 1991 to 15th October, 1991, the total whereof comes to 279 days immediately before his termination of the services. From the aforesaid inspection it is also clear that the concerned workman was not only working during the crushing season but also worked during the off season. From the aforesaid inspection it is also clear that the concerned workman was not only working during the crushing season but also worked during the off season. In this view of the matter, from the facts and circumstances stated, the labour court came to the conclusion that it cannot be said that as suggested by the employer that the concerned workman was not employed for 240 days during the preceding 12 calendar months and, therefore, there is nothing wrong if the demand of confirmation is raised by the concerned workman. The labour court, therefore, directed that the action of the employer from removing the concerned workman from the store clerk and deputing him on some other post is definitely an act which has resulted into because of demand raised by the concerned workman for his confirmation on the relevant date, i. e. , 25th July, 1988. The concerned workman has worked as clerk in the store and, therefore, the action of the employer in not confirming and declaring the concerned workman as permanent is illegal and unjustified. Therefore, direction was issued that the employer should declare the concerned workman as confirmed store clerk in the store with effect from the date when he took over the charge. This direction, as stated above, is based on evidence on record which has been considered by the labour court and the labour court arrived at a positive conclusion and recorded finding of facts which do not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India nor the same has been demonstrated to be suffering from error of law. ( 6 ) IN view of what has been stated above, this petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The award of the labour court dated 3rd June, 1996, is confirmed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. There is no order as to costs. .