JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the Management of Food Corporation of India, represented by the Senior Regional Manager, Regional Office, assailing the legality and validity of the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata in reference case No. 27/1988. The said reference case had arisen pursuant to the dispute which was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication. The dispute referred to the Tribunal is quoted below: Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India, G.S. Road, Ulubari, Shillong to stop work to Shri Gauri Rai and 34 other workers given in the annexure with effect from May, 1982 is justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled? The said dispute was referred to the Tribunal by an order dated 18.02.87 issued by the Central Govt. in exercise of its powers under Section 10(i)(d) and (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the workmen involved in this proceeding is that they were engaged by the FCI to do the work of loading and unloading at the Tinsukia Depot by the Corporation. Originally there was about 73 workmen working at the said Depot and they were the members of FCI workmen's union. The said union failed to look after the welfare of the workmen and as a result 42 workmen including the workmen in this proceeding left the same and joined a new union, i.e. FCI Workers and Employees Union. Earlier one Shri Suraj Rai was the Labour Sardar and belonged to the original union. He being aggrieved by the formation of the new union and taking into its fold the 42 worker including the 35 workmen involved in this proceeding with the help of the FCI Officers stopped their engagement with FCI w.e.f. May 1982. According to the workmen in this proceeding such refusal to engage them amounted to termination of their employment in violation of the procedure laid down in law. Their demand was that they should be reinstated in their jobs with full back wages and other benefits. 3. On the other hand it was the case of the management Petitioner that the said workmen were never employed by the FCI and that there was no master and servant relationship between them. Their demand was that they should be reinstated in their jobs with full back wages and other benefits. 3. On the other hand it was the case of the management Petitioner that the said workmen were never employed by the FCI and that there was no master and servant relationship between them. Thus, there was no question of retrenchment or termination of their services by the FCI and accordingly they were not entitled to any relief. 4. In the aforesaid fact situation, a dispute was raised before the Labour and Enforcement Officer (C) and Conciliation Officer, Dibrugarh. The proceeding having not yielded any result, the matter was referred to the Central Govt. which in turn made the aforesaid reference. Thereafter, the Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata adjudicated upon the matter and passed the impugned award directing the management of FCI (the Writ Petitioners) to take back the workmen and to pay the consolidated amount of Rs. 5000/- as compensation to each of the workmen for loss of their wage which they would have earned had the management not refused to give them work. However, back wages were not ordered to be paid on the ground that no evidence was led to establish that the workmen were engaged throughout the total period under the FCI. Evidences were led on behalf of the parties before the Tribunal. On conclusion of the proceeding, the Tribunal passed the impugned award. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the said award. In due course the aforesaid workmen entered appearance in the case and filed their affidavit in opposition denying the contentions raised in the writ petition and supporting the award passed in their favour by the Tribunal. 5. I have heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, and Mr. A.S. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel for the Respondents/workmen. 6. The basic thrust of argument of Mr. Dutta is that the direction issued by the Tribunal to take back the workmen and to pay each of them a consolidated amount of Rs. 5000/- as compensation is per se illegal and is not based on any evidence on record. According to him the findings recorded by the Tribunal in paragraph 9 of the award is utterly perverse and based on no evidence whatsoever. 5000/- as compensation is per se illegal and is not based on any evidence on record. According to him the findings recorded by the Tribunal in paragraph 9 of the award is utterly perverse and based on no evidence whatsoever. His further submission is that such a finding and conclusion recorded by the Tribunal is in conflict and contradictory to the findings and conclusions recorded in the earlier part of the award. Mr. Dutta submitted that the workmen could not establish the fact of their engagement although the onus was on them to substantiate the claim by adducing evidence. He specifically referred to the provisions of Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, more particularly, to Sub-section (2)(a)(ii). Referring to the findings recorded by the Tribunal to the affect that there is no materials led by the workmen as to when they had started working with the FCI and as to whether their services were terminated after they were made 'Direct Payment Workers' could not have passed the impugned award directing reinstatement of the workmen. Mr. Dutta relied upon the decision of the Apex Court as reported in (2002) 8 SCC 400 (Essen Deinki v. Rajiv Kumar) wherein the Apex Court held that the onus lies on the workman to prove that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding his termination. 7. On the other hand Mr. A.S. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel for the Respondents, submitted that the findings recorded by the Tribunal is not liable to be interfered with and the writ court will not sit on appeal over such finding. According to Mr. Choudhury, there is overwhelming evidence supporting the case of the workmen and it was on that basis only, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion as recorded in the impugned award. Lastly, Mr. Choudhury submitted that a pragmatic approach is required to be taken to the whole issue having regard to the fact that the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is a beneficial legislation. 8. Replying to the aforesaid submissions made by Mr. Choudhury on behalf of the workmen. Mr. Dutta reiterated his earlier submissions. However, he added that the findings and conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal in paragraph 9 of the award are only on the basis of presumptions and (hat the Tribunal in case of any doubt could have called for the documents in question. Choudhury on behalf of the workmen. Mr. Dutta reiterated his earlier submissions. However, he added that the findings and conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal in paragraph 9 of the award are only on the basis of presumptions and (hat the Tribunal in case of any doubt could have called for the documents in question. His further submission is that workmen themselves could not discharge their onus to prove their engagement and wrongful discharge by the FCI. According to him the Tribunal was wrong in relying upon the statements of MW (I) and MW (II) as reflected in paragraph 8 of the award, in as much as their depositions were in respect of subsequent period having no nexus with the issue relating to alleged termination of services in the year 1982. 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the parties. I have gone through the materials on record and perused the impugned award. The Tribunal, upon examination of the available materials and evidence on record, has observed in paragraph 6 of the award as follows: There is no materials led by the workmen through their union telling when these 35 persons started their engagements with the FCI and no materials is available in support of the contention that in fact these 35 persons in particular were allowed to work with the FCI either through the labour sadar Suraj Rai or any other. No material is laid to show how long for they had worked and whether the FCI had any control over their work and if their jobs were terminated after they were made Direct payment workers. The oral evidence of the workmen is half-hazard. 10. Again in paragraph 7 of the impugned award, the Tribunal has recorded its findings as below: With these distorted facts it is difficult to hold that if all the 35 employees or any of the employees mentioned in the list annexed to the schedule of reference has found mentioned in the acquittance role of the FCI as the existence of acquittance roll is admitted by the Management's witness, according to whom the acquittance roll would show that they were the persons engaged by the FCI. No attempt has been made by the workmen to produce the same in the case. No attempt has been made by the workmen to produce the same in the case. Without any proper evidence in support of the contention that these workmen who were working in the Regional Director of food earlier to the formation of the FCI, were taken over by the FCI and allowed to continue under the FCI and were stopped to be given any work at a particular point of time without any reason, no relief can be given of reinstating them with back wages. 11. The whole basis of the impugned award directing the management of the FCI to take back the workmen and to pay them the consolidated amount of Rs. 5000/- as compensation is on the basis of the statements of MW (I) and MW (II) as reflected in paragraph 8 of the award. Bare perusal of their statements as recorded in the said paragraph will show that what had stated before the Tribunal was in respect of the period after 1986. MW (I) stated that the 'Direct Payment System' was introduced w.e.f. 1985. The Tribunal, although has referred to the alleged statement made by MW(II) towards drawing a presumption that the workmen might have been working with the FCI, nothing could be found as regards such alleged statements made by the MW (II). Rather, it was on the basis of discussions of evidence on record including the statements made by MW(II), the Tribunal came to the aforesaid conclusions as quoted above. The Tribunal has drawn a presumption in the absence of the Acquittance Roll and the Despatch Register, unmindful of the fact that the workmen themselves did not mention anything about those two documents and that as per the findings of the Tribunal the workmen could not establish their case. The Tribunal ought not to have drawn the presumption in favour of the workmen, more particularly, when the workmen themselves failed to discharge their onus by way of adducing evidence to show that they were in continuous service preceding the years of their alleged termination of service in May, 1982. The decision of the Apex Court as relied upon by Mr. The decision of the Apex Court as relied upon by Mr. Dutta, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, supports this position wherein the Apex Court quoted with authority an earlier decision as reported in (2002) 3 SCC 25 (Range Forest Officer v. S. T. Hadimani) which is reproduced below: In our opinion the Tribunal was not right in placing the onus on the management without first determining on the basis of cogent evidence that the Respondent had worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding his termination. It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked but this claim was denied by the Appellant. It was then for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination. Filling of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any court or tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had, in fact, worked for 240 days in a year. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement for this period was produced by the workman. On this ground alone, the award is liable to be set aside. 12. The Tribunal after recording the definite finding that there is no material to support the contention that the workmen were working under the Regional Director of FCI and were stopped from such working at a particular point which is May, 1982, no relief could have been given by way of reinstatement in service with compensation. Thus, such a finding as recorded by the Tribunal in paragraph 9 of the award on the face of it is utterly perverse and is based on no evidence. 13. There is no denial of the position of law that the power of Judicial Review is circumscribed in a proceeding under the Article 226. The High Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal over the findings recorded by a Tribunal. However, there are exceptions to this proposition. Judicial review under Article 226 is directed not against correctness of the decision, but against the correctness of the decision making process. The High Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal over the findings recorded by a Tribunal. However, there are exceptions to this proposition. Judicial review under Article 226 is directed not against correctness of the decision, but against the correctness of the decision making process. The High Court may interfere with a finding of fact, if it is shown that the finding is not supported by any evidence or that the Tribunal has refused to admit material evidence or has admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, such interference is also called for when the findings recorded by the Tribunal are perverse or based upon a view of facts which could never be reasonably entertained. In the instant case the Tribunal even after recording its findings and conclusions that the workmen are not entitled to any relief by way of reinstatement in service with back wages, could not have ordered for the same in a complete overturn of the said findings which on the face of it is in direct conflict with the said findings recorded which have been quoted above. It is an admitted position that the workmen could not and did not discharge their duty to prove their engagement and continuation in service under the management of tire FCI preceding the year in which they were allegedly disengaged, as required under the law. The reference itself was in respect of their alleged dis-continuation w.e.f May/82. However, the Tribunal while issuing the impugned direction as contained in the award took into account the statement of the MW(1) relating to 1985-86. Nothing has been stated by the said witness as to what was the position prior to May, 1982. On the other hand the MW(2) also has not stated anything supporting the case of the workmen. Thus, findings recorded by the Tribunal in paragraph 9 of the award is not sustainable on two counts, viz., (a) being a case of no evidence and inadmissible evidence and (b) being in conflict with its clear findings recorded in the award to the effect that the workmen are not entitled to any relief by way of reinstatement in service with full back wages. Another aspect of the matter is that the Tribunal has eventually passed an award on the basis of discussions made in paragraph 9 of the award which on the face of it are based on conjectures and surmises and not on the basis of any concrete evidence. Thus, it is a case of no evidence at all and such findings recorded by the Tribunal is perverse. 14. Above being the position of the fact and law, I have no hesitation to set aside and quash the impugned award dated 28.2.97 passed by the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata in Reference case No. 27/88 which I accordingly do. 15. The writ petition is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own cost. Petition allowed