ORDER Tapen Sen, J. 1. Heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S.B. Gadodia, Senior Advocate, appearing for the respondent No. 2 and with their consent this writ petition is being disposed off at this stage. 2. The writ petitioner has prayed for quashing the award dated 15.3.2001, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City in Reference Case No. 06/95, whereby and whereunder he has held that there is a relationship of employer and employee between the Management of Bokaro Steel Plant and the concerned workman. He has also held that the action of the Management in not regularising the services of the said concerned workman is improper and unjustified and that he is entitled to regularisation of his services together with all benefits and consequently, a prayer has been made for issuance of a direction upon the Management to implement the Award within a period of two months from the date of pronouncement. 3. According to the Management (the Petitioner), the concerned Workman was appointed by the "Bokaro Steel Sports and Recreation Council" in 1985 and that, this Council is an autonomous body and it has its own funds and grants which are given by the Bokaro Steel Plant. It has its own Rules and Regulations and is run by the Managing Committee which is constituted/reconstituted by the Managing Director of the Steel Authority of India Limited/Bokaro Steel Plant who nominates the employee in the Bokaro Steel Plant. According to them, the concerned workman was being paid wages from the funds of the Council (i.e. Bokaro Steel Sports and Recreation Council) and his attendance was being taken on separate sheet and no letter, of appointment was given to him. In that view of the matter, according to the petitioner, the concerned workman is a "workman" of the said Council and he has no concern with the Bokaro Steel Plant and, therefore, is not entitled to any relief whatsoever. 4. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the concerned workman has drawn the attention of this Court to Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the findings given by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City. At Paragraph 5 of the said findings, the Presiding Officer has indicated that the Management (Petitioner) had filed Ext. M-3, which is the Constitution and Bye-laws of the Bokaro Steel Sports and Recreation Council. At Paragraph 5 of the said findings, the Presiding Officer has indicated that the Management (Petitioner) had filed Ext. M-3, which is the Constitution and Bye-laws of the Bokaro Steel Sports and Recreation Council. However, the learned Presiding Officer has stated that this document does not bear any specific date showing or proving as to when this document came on record. The Presiding Officer has also stated that the Management relied upon Ext. M-2 which is a letter addressed to the D.L.C Bokaro, dated 17.3.1994, by the Management of Bokaro Steel Plant, refusing to recognise the respondent No. 2 (i,e. the Workman) as their employee. Apart from this, in the same paragraph 5, the Presiding Officer has stated that the Management also relied upon yet another letter dated 2nd March, 1985, being Ext. M, which is a Letter Head of the Steel Authority of India. 5. Thus, from a perusal of the Award itself, it is apparent that apart from aforementioned three documents, the Management did not file any other document in support of their contentions or arguments. On the contrary, at paragraph 6, the Presiding Officer has referred to various documents which had been filed by the concerned workman but the most important documents which the Presiding Officer has taken note of are :--(a) the documents which prove that the concerned workman was transferred from Bokaro Steel Plan to Kiriburu Iron Ore Mines of SAIL; and (b) the attendance sheet of SAIL Bokaro Steel Plant for January 1993, showing the attendance to have been taken by the Sports and Civic Amenities Department, but the mode was, however, later on changed and it was obtained on a separate sheet. The Presiding Officer Labour Court has also discussed the payment particulars relating to the concerned workman which was duly prepared by the Accounts Department of the Bokaro Steel Plant vide Ext. W. 4. Additionally, Ext. W-5 is an Office Order No. S-A/94-449, dated 14.2.1994 of the Management of Bokaro Steel Plant envisaging disciplinary action against respondent No. 2. According to the Labour Court, this document proved that the disciplinary authority of the respondent No. 2 was none other than the Management of the Bokaro Steel Plant. W. 4. Additionally, Ext. W-5 is an Office Order No. S-A/94-449, dated 14.2.1994 of the Management of Bokaro Steel Plant envisaging disciplinary action against respondent No. 2. According to the Labour Court, this document proved that the disciplinary authority of the respondent No. 2 was none other than the Management of the Bokaro Steel Plant. He has also relied upon a magazine of Bokaro Steel Plant known as "Bokaro Darpan" wherein the respondent No. 2 had been shown as a member of the Quality Circle No. 256 and according to the Labour Court, this also proves that the respondent No. 2 is a workman of the Bokaro Steel Plant as, only a workman of the said plaint can be a member of the Quality Circle and not an outsider. 6. Taking into consideration the aforesaid documents of the concerned workman vide Ext. W series and also other documents and oral evidence, the Labour Court came to a conclusion that the Bye-Laws which was Ext. M-3, had only been created with a view to deprive the workman from the facilities which the Bokaro Steel Plant employees enjoy. He also came to a conclusion after discussing all these evidences, both oral and documentary, that the Sports and Recreation Council is a Department of Bokaro Steel Plant and is not an autonomous body. He also came to a conclusion that these documents were enough to lead him to a conclusion that the respondent No. 2 was a workman working under the Management of the Bokaro Steel Plant as Junior Sports Organizer. 7. At paragraph 10, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, has stated that the documents which were brought on record by the workman were suppressed by the Management and not filed for examination of the Labour Court. On the basis of documents before him, he, therefore, came to a conclusion that there was a relationship of employer and employee existing between the Management of Bokaro Steel Plant and the respondent No. 2. The findings of the Labour Court are findings based on facts which he has arrived at on the basis of the security of evidence, both oral and documentary. 8. The findings of the Labour Court are findings based on facts which he has arrived at on the basis of the security of evidence, both oral and documentary. 8. The moot question, therefore, that falls for consideration is as to "whether in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, exercising Writ Jurisdiction, this Court can sit as an appellate forum and reappreciate the evidence recorded by the Labour Court" ? 9. The same question fell for consideration before this Court in the case of Kashi Nath Sharma v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur, reported in (2002) 1 BLJR 106, where a learned single Judge after referring to a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Bank of India and Anr. v. Degala Surya Narayana, reported in AIR 1999 SC 2407 , held that where it appears that a Tribunal, after considering the documentary evidence, as also evidence of the witnesses including the workman has come to a conclusive finding, there was no perversity in such finding and that a finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court or a Tribunal cannot be judicially reviewed except in case of mala fide or perversity. The Court cannot reappreciate evidence like that of an Appellate Court. In the aforementioned judgment of the Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1999 SC 2407 , it was also held that a Court exercising the jurisdiction of judicial review would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental proceedings/enquiry except in a case of mala fides or perversity, i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at that finding. The Honble Supreme Court held that the Court cannot embark upon reappreciating evidence like that of an appellate authority. 10. Similarly, in yet another judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Overseas Bank v. The Indian Overseas Bank Staff Canteen Workers Union and another, reported in 2000 (4) SCC 245 , it has inter alia been held that interference under Article 226 with pure findings of fact and reappreciation of evidence, is impermissible. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand has referred to a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court reported in 1981 (3) SCC 500 . 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand has referred to a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court reported in 1981 (3) SCC 500 . In the aforementioned case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter went up to the Apex Court on the basis of an order passed on a writ petition which was dismissed. The subject-matter of that case was that, while making the Award, the Industrial Court had adopted a standard that a worker employed for 240 days or more in a year was entitled to the status of a permanent worker but did not consider as to whether for acquiring that status it was sufficient that the employer was employed for such a period in one year alone or contained to be so employed in successive year. The facts and points involved in that case are not applicable here. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited a judgment passed by a single Judge of this Honble Court in the case of Bokaro Ispat Kamgar Union v. The Chairman, SAIL and Ors., reported in 2002 (1) JCR 165 . This case is also not applicable because that concerns the Bokaro Steel City Central Consumer Co- operative Stores Ltd. Additionally, this case would also not be applicable because in this case there are evidences establishing that the respondent No. 2 was very much under the supervision and control of the Management of Bokaro Steel Plant as has been discussed in detail by the learned Labour Court at Para 6 of the Award in this case. 13. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has also relied upon yet another Judgment in the case of Employers in Relation to the Management of Reserve Bank of India v. Workman, reported in 1996 (3) SCC 267 , in support of the contention that merely because there are nomination, of a few representatives to a Committee which runs a Canteen, there cannot be an existence of the relationship of employer and employee. This judgment is also not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case in view of the reasonings given by the learned Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City at Paragraph 6 of the Award. 14. This judgment is also not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case in view of the reasonings given by the learned Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City at Paragraph 6 of the Award. 14. Paragraph 6 of the Award in the present case considers a series of documentary evidences that were brought on record by the concerned workman, some of which were so clinching in nature that there was no option for the Labour Court but to come to a logical conclusion that there was a relation of employer and employee. These clinching evidences, as stated above, were (a) the order of transfer; (b) the letter envisaging disciplinary action against the concerned workman; and (c) the payment particulars in relation to the said concerned workman. It appears that before the Labour Court these documents were suppressed by the Management as has been mentioned by the Labour Court himself at paragraph 10. This Court, sitting under Article 226, cannot now upset the findings of fact, especially in view of the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court, referred to above, i.e. 2000 (4) SCC 245 : AIR 1999 SC 2407 , and also in view of the judgment of an Honble Single Judge of this Court reported in 2002 (1) BLJR 106. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court does not find any infirmity with the Award and consequently also does not find any reason to interfere with the Award passed by the Labour Court. This writ petition has no merit and it is accordingly dismissed.