JUDGMENT : P. Sathasivam, J.—Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, Salem, dated May 7, 1995, made in I.D. No. 176 of 1992, the Medical Superintendent, IRT, RT Sanatorium, Perundurai, has filed the above writ petition to quash the same on various grounds. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: The second respondent one K. Jeevanandam is employed as a contractor who was to undertake supply of men for work on contract basis, and under him several people were working under contract. He never worked as a cook on daily basis. He was stopped from the month of June 1988 from taking any contract work. He raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 176 of 1992 on the file of the first respondent claiming reinstatement with back wages on the ground that he was employed as cook on daily wage of Rs. 9 and he was abruptly stopped from service orally from August 10, 1988 without assigning any reason. 3. On the other hand, it is the case of the first respondent that without looking into the documents produced on the side of the management, the Labour Court has accepted the case of the second respondent and ordered reinstatement with back-wages of Rs. 10 and that the Labour Court has not considered the questions Nos. Ml to M35 produced by the management which shows that the second respondent along with various other persons have bid for supply of labour on contract at particular rate and under M38 to M49. They have also received contract and labour charges as per the quotations. Since the above vital aspects have not been considered, having no other remedy, they filed the present writ petition. 4. The second respondent has filed a counter-affidavit stating that he was employed for about 6 years continuously without any break in the hospital as a cook and also for other work in the kitchen. At the time of termination, he was paid at the rate of Rs.9 per day. The wages were paid once in a week. After considering the oral and documentary evidence and hearing the arguments of both the sides, the first respondent passed the award, dated May 7, 1995, holding categorically that he was workman employed by the writ-petitioner and rejected the claim that he was a contractor and directed the management to reinstate him with continuity of service with Rs. After considering the oral and documentary evidence and hearing the arguments of both the sides, the first respondent passed the award, dated May 7, 1995, holding categorically that he was workman employed by the writ-petitioner and rejected the claim that he was a contractor and directed the management to reinstate him with continuity of service with Rs. 10,000 towards back-wages. Since the finding of the Labour Court is a finding of fact, there is no ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the second respondent. 6. The only point that arises for consideration is, whether the Labour Court is justified in ordering reinstatement with a sum of Rs. 10,000 towards back-wages. 7. Sri T. Arulraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by taking me through the voluminous documents produced before the Labour Court would contend that the Labour Court has committed an error in passing an award in favour of the workman more particularly in the light of the documents M5, 16 and M24. According to him, since the findings of the Labour Court is a frivolous one, the same has to be set aside by this Court. On the other hand, Sri Hariparanthaman, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would contend that inasmuch as on an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Labour Court has arrived at factual conclusion that the second respondent is a workman and not a contractor as claimed, in the absence of any other material. Interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by this Court is not called for. 8. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. 9. It is the definite case of the second respondent that he was employed in the management for a period of 6 years and while he was being paid a wage of Rs. 9 per day, he was suddenly stopped from attending work with effect from August 10, 1988 without notice or intimation. It is the definite case of the petitioner-management that the second respondent was only a contractor and he used to bring some persons to work under the management and he was not a regular workman as claimed. The management apart from examining one Dr. It is the definite case of the petitioner-management that the second respondent was only a contractor and he used to bring some persons to work under the management and he was not a regular workman as claimed. The management apart from examining one Dr. Padmanabhan as MW 1 and produced and marked Exhibits Ml to M 6 in support of their claim. Most of the documents relate to the quotation given by various persons through the petitioner. The Labour Court has also considered the evidence of the second respondent as WW1 and the documents Wl to W7. Wl dated October 21, 1986, is the certificate issued to the second respondent. W2 is a series of letters addressed to the second respondent. In the oral evidence, WW1 has asserted that wage was being paid to him on getting signature in the muster-roll and at no point of time, he worked as contractor. He further deposed that totally 13 persons were working in the kitchen and except himself all others were made permanent. It is also his case that when he requested the management to regularise his services, he was orally terminated. 10. The Labour Court, in the light of the defence taken, verified the quotation submitted by various persons (Exhibits Ml to M35) and after verifying the same considered the issue that there is ample evidence to show that these documents were prepared for the purpose of this case. It is not disputed that except Exhibits M5, M16 and M24 all other quotations were given by various persons. As rightly discussed by the Labour Court, even if these three documents are accepted there is no valid explanation from the management in respect of the work done on other dates. Admittedly, vouchers Exhibits M53 to M83 filed by the management do not contain the name of the second respondent herein. He had not disputed that the work in the kitchen has to be done without any break. In this regard it is relevant to note the contents of Exhibits Wl, W2 and W7. Exhibit W2 which speaks about the service particulars of the second respondent herein and Exhibit W7 is a letter written by MW1 himself. He had not disputed that the work in the kitchen has to be done without any break. In this regard it is relevant to note the contents of Exhibits Wl, W2 and W7. Exhibit W2 which speaks about the service particulars of the second respondent herein and Exhibit W7 is a letter written by MW1 himself. The Labour Court correctly verified those documents and arrived at a conclusion that under Exhibit W2, the rubber stamp of the Institute has been affixed and W7 has been written in the letter pad of MW 1. After examination of those documents as well as the documents produced by the management, it has arrived at a conclusion that the management failed to explain the details regarding the work done in the kitchen and the persons worked therein. Even though it is stated that pursuant to the order of the Labour Court in L.A. No. 237 of 1992, certain documents were produced before the Labour Court, it is seen that for several years, the management has not placed acceptable documents such as quotations/v vouchers or counter foils of the cheques issued to various persons. As rightly discussed by the Labour Court, it is not the case of the petitioner-management that the second respondent herein was registered contractor and obtained a licence. After considering all the relevant materials, including oral and documentary evidence, rejected the claim of the management and found that the second respondent herein was a workman and entitled for reinstatement with back-wages to the extent of Rs. 10,000. 11. Though it is argued that the finding is frivolous, after going though the relevant documents and the findings of the Labour Court, I am unable to accept the said contention. In the absence of any other material, in the light of the findings of the Labour Court that the second respondent herein is a workman, which is a finding of fact, interference by this Court under Article 226 is not warranted. I have already held that based on the materials, the Labour Court has recorded a finding that the second respondent herein was a workman and not a contractor. It is also not the case of the petitioner-management that there is no evidence before the Labour Court. In such circumstances as observed by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Indian Overseas Bank Vs. It is also not the case of the petitioner-management that there is no evidence before the Labour Court. In such circumstances as observed by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Indian Overseas Bank Vs. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers' Union and Another, there is no justification for this Court in exercising the writ jurisdiction to interfere with the same. 12. Though certain documents have been placed before the Labour Court to show that the second respondent was only a contractor and not a workman, as mentioned above, the said aspect was considered by the Labour Court in detail with reference to oral and documentary evidence and arrived at a factual finding that the second respondent herein is only a workman and not a contractor. Accordingly, the said discussion and the finding cannot be termed as frivolous finding as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I am satisfied that the finding is based on acceptable evidence and in the absence of other contra material, I do not find any valid reason to interfere with the same. 13. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. It is stated that pursuant to the direction of this Court, the petitioner/management has deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000 as ordered by the Labour Court. In view of the present order dismissing the writ petition, the second respondent is permitted to withdraw the said amount.