Order Heard the parties. In the year 1975, S.K. Chakravorty was appointed as Mazdoor on compassionate ground, after superannuation of his father in the year 1972, in the Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'TISCO') at Jamshedpur. On and from 13.5.1981 he was allowed to work as temporary Time Keeper. In 1983 the TISCO asked him to sign a declaration and opt for either the post of the Time Keeper or the Mazdoor. He chose the Time Keeper's job. In 1985 reorganization of the time office the posts d Time Keepers were reduced and accordingly 36.6% posts were abolished. At that time the appellant wanted to become Mazdoor and had already completed the points for permanency, but he was not allowed to opt for Mazdoor. Thereafter from 28.8.1985 the Management of TISCO stopped taking work from him. 2. At the instance of the appellant the State Government by Notification dated 6.9.1989 referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur. "Whether not to give work to Sri S.K. Chakravorty from 1985 by Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited is justified? If not, whether he is entitled to reinstatement and for any other relief?" 3. The Labour Court passed the award dated 24.9.1994 in Reference Case No. 31 of 1999 and directed the management of Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited to reinstate the appellant on the post of Time Keeper with full back wages from January, 1988. It was also observed that his services would be deemed to have been made permanent as Time Keeper in the year 1988. The appellant was held entitled to realize the amount of back wages with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the award till payment. 4. The Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited challenged the said Award in this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 229 of 1995 ®, which has been dismissed on 12.9.2002, by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the present Appeal. 5. Mr. 4. The Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited challenged the said Award in this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 229 of 1995 ®, which has been dismissed on 12.9.2002, by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the present Appeal. 5. Mr. M.M. Banerjee, counsel for the appellant submitted a short point for the purpose of this Appeal that on 27.5.1986, the respondent no.2 himself wanted to become Mazdoor after he had completed the points for permanency and had filed an application and had intended to withdrawn his aforesaid option given in the year 1985, i.e., not to continue as Time Keeper, but to become Mazdoor, before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Jamshedpur, and therefore, if the Labour Court found that the management was not justified in terminating him by refusing to given any work and directed his reinstatement, he should have been reinstated on the post of Mazdoor and not on the post of Time Keeper. 6. On 27.5.1986, the management of TISCO took decision that all the temporary Time Keeper, who were 71 in number to become Mazdoors in the E.B. Pool, but earlier to that the respondent no.2 himself wanted to become Mazdoor, after he completed the points for permanency. It was indicated by him in his application/demand dated 27.5.1986 also filed before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Jamshedpur, which was annexed to the Reference Notification as Annexure-1. As such, according to Mr. Banerjee, the appellant could have been reinstated only as the Mazdoor and not as the Time Keeper. 7. We find that firstly in the year 1983 the Management of TISCO decided to reduce the strength of Time Keepers from 129 to 83 wherein the respondent no.2 was working. He was one of the Time Keepers in the revised standard force of 1983 and continuously worked on the said post till 27.8.1985. However, since he was retrenched with effect from 28.8.1985, his name was not shown in the list of those 71 persons, who were working as temporarily time keepers, as contained in the communication dated 27.5.1986 issued regarding rationalization for the force of the G.T.O. Accounts Division, due to computerization. Now since the Labour Court, on the basis of evidence on record has come to the conclusion that refusal to give work to the appellant amounted to termination of his employment, which was not justified. Now since the Labour Court, on the basis of evidence on record has come to the conclusion that refusal to give work to the appellant amounted to termination of his employment, which was not justified. After May, 1986, the 71 temporary time keepers were made Mazdoors in the E.B. Pool. Hence, the direction of the Labour Court, which was confirmed by the learned Single Judge to reinstate the respondent no.2 as time-keeper cannot be interfered with in this appeal. There is no merit in the appeal. It is dismissed.