JUDGMENT RAJESH TANDON, J. : Heard Shri C.K. Sharma Counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.S. Negi Counsel for the respondent. By the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned award dated 10.6.1997 (Annexure-I) to the writ petition passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P. Haldwani in Adjudication Case No. 96 of 1991. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the given writ petition are that in exercise of the powers under section 4-K of the Industrial Dispute Act, the State of U.P. vide its order dated 17.7.1991 referred the following dispute for adjudication. The terms of reference is being reproduced here in below: "KIYA SEWAYOJKON DWARA APNEY SHARAMIK RAHMAT All PUTRA JUMMA TATHA SHAFAT All PUTRA SHAUKAT All KO NIYAMIT KIYA JANA CHAHIYEY? YADI HAN TO KIS TITHI SEY TATHA KIS ANY A VIVRAN KEY SATH." 3. At the time of the filing of the writ petition following order was passed on 16.4.1998. Hon'ble S.H.A Raza, J. "Admit. Issue Notice to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 returnable at an early date. List thereafter. Meanwhile it is provided that in case petitioner pays to the respondents workman their wages at the rate of wage last drawn by them from the date of filing of the writ petition and will continue to pay the same in accordance with the provisions contained in section 17-B of the Industrial Dispute Act (Central) the award made by the Labour Court shall remain stayed." 4. The order was further modified on 12.10.2000. The same is quoted below: "Hon'ble S.H.A. Raza, J. The order dated 16.04.1998 is clarified only to the extent that the benefit of the order dated 16.04.1998 would be available to Sri Shafat Ali, respondent No.3. 5. Thus, the dispute is confined only with regard to the extent of benefit given by the Labour Court in favour of the respondent No.3 alone. Upon registration of the adjudication of Case No. 96 of 1996 the written statement was filed by the respondent. The petitioner has filed the reply. . 6. The respondent No.3 has also filed the rejoinder affidavit and has stated that he has worked as Mason in the Civil Engineering Department of the Employer Factory continuously for 240 days and has also prayed for the regularization. The petitioner has filed the reply. . 6. The respondent No.3 has also filed the rejoinder affidavit and has stated that he has worked as Mason in the Civil Engineering Department of the Employer Factory continuously for 240 days and has also prayed for the regularization. Relevant paragraphs are quoted below:- Paragraph- 2 "That the contents of paragraph 1 and 1 (A) of the E.W.S. are not admitted as stated therein. The work man concerned with the above noted case have worked as Mason in the Civil Engineering Department of the Employer's Factory and having worked as such continuously for two hundred forty days prior to 10.9.90 they demanded their regularization in (permanent) service. Vide their application dated 28.7.90 and of the same employer affected termination of their services on 10.9.1990 prejudicially." Paragraph - 4 "That the contents of paragraphs 4 and 5 of the E.W.S. are not admitted as stated therein. Masons job is a permanent nature of work specially in the employers factory, which has been undergoing expansion of its plant and machinery and has a vast residential colony for its workmen." Paragraph - 5 "That the contents of paragraphs 6 and 7 of the E.W.S. are not admitted being incorrect and misleading. The workman concerned with the case have worked for more than 240 days during 12 calendar months prior to 10.9.90 and it is self-evident from the above position that the employer need their service permanently and as such the workmen are entitled to their absorption in permanent service of the employer." 7. The parties were also given the opportunity of leading the oral evidence. The petitioner has admitted that there is one permanent post of Mason in the factory. 8. Similar statement has been made by Shri V.V. Lal Srivastava on behalf of the employer to the following effect : The respondent No.3 has also made his statement to the following effect : 9. The Labour Tribunal by the order dated 10 June, 1997 has passed the award to the following effect : 10. Since there is a admission that one Mason is required permanently and the benefit has been extended in favour of the respondent No.3, I find no infirmity in the order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the petitioner has very fairly stated that respondent No. 3 shall be absorbed in accordance with the requirement of the job. Counsel for the petitioner has very fairly stated that respondent No. 3 shall be absorbed in accordance with the requirement of the job. 11. Since the labour laws being welfare legislation no interference is required under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Calcutta Port Shramik Union v. Calcutta R.T. Association, 1988 (57) FLR 689 (SC) as referred in EMPL. Bhurkunda Colliery v. Workmen Burkunda Colliery, 2001 (90) FLR page 443 (Jhr. H.C.). to the following effect : "The object of enacting the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and of making provision therein to refer disputes to Tribunals for settlement is to bring about industrial peace. Whenever a reference is made by a Government to an industrial tribunal it has to be presumed ordinarily that there is a genuine industrial dispute between the parties which requires to be resolved by adjudication. In all such cases an attempt should be made by Courts exercising powers of judicial review to sustain as far as possible the awards made by Industrial Tribunals instead of picking holes here and there in the awards on trivial points and ultimately frustrating the entire adjudication process before the Tribunals by striking down awards on hyper-technical grounds. Unfortunately, the orders of the Single Judge and of the Division Bench have resulted in such frustration and have made the award fruitless on an untenable basis." 12. In view of the facts stated aforesaid, I find no infirmity in the order passed by the Labour Court treating the respondent No.3 as a regular Mason. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition Dismissed.