JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Award dated 3.12.1999 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi in Reference Case No. 0011/92 whereby the Labour Court answered the reference against the petitioner and held that the concerned workman was not directly recruited by the respondent-Heavy Engineering Corporation and therefore the question for reinstatement does not arise. 2. It appears that the Government of Bihar by notification dated 14.10.1992 referred the following disputes to the Labour Court for adjudication :-- "Whether Sri Ashutosh Pandey, Office Assistant was direct workman of Heavy Engineering Corporation? If so whether termination of services of Sri Pandey is proper? If not Sri Pandey should reinstated or work/and should be given compensation?" 3. The case of the concerned workman is that he worked as Office Assistant in the Project Division of Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. at Jayant CHP in Madhya Pradesh from 22.10.1982 to July 1986 without any break and without availing any facilities. For the good work done by him he was given testimonial dated 28.9.1984. However, it is contended that the Project Manager and the residents Engineer abruptly and orally terminated his services--with effect from August 1986. 4. Further case of the workman is that proposal to retain all the casual employee was given to the Project Manager and after four months he was again taken back in the service and after expiry of two months an extension was given for another three months. This time the workman said to have worked from 23.12.1986 to 20.5.1987 without any break at the rate of 16.10 paise per day. 5. The case of the Management is that the reference itself is not maintainable. The concerned workman was never engaged or employed by the Management and as a matter of fact he was a man of the Contractor. There is no relationship between the concerned workman and the management. It is stated that the concerned workman was engaged through the contractor at the site office at Madhya Pradesh. The circumstances in which the contractor terminated his service are not known to the Management. 6. The Labour Court formulated the following points for consideration : "(i) Whether reference is maintainable? "(i) Whether Sri Ashutosh Pandey Office Asstt. was direct Workman of HEC? "(i) Whether termination of services of Sri Pandey is Proper? The circumstances in which the contractor terminated his service are not known to the Management. 6. The Labour Court formulated the following points for consideration : "(i) Whether reference is maintainable? "(i) Whether Sri Ashutosh Pandey Office Asstt. was direct Workman of HEC? "(i) Whether termination of services of Sri Pandey is Proper? "(i) Whether Sri Pandey is entitled to any relief? 7. The Labour Court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties recorded a finding that the concerned workman failed to prove that he is a direct employee of the management of Heavy Engineering Corporation. The Labour Court further found that the concerned workman was engaged by the Contractor on daily wages basis for doing the work of the management, 8. I have heard Mr. Ashutosh Pandey in person and also Mr. Ashwini Kumar, Learned counsel for the respondents. 9. The admitted case of the concerned workman which appears from his deposition referred in the award is that he worked on casual basis after he was appointed at Singrauli Project and he was removed orally in 1986. He further stated that he was again appointed by the Management for two months, which was extended for three months and was again removed orally by the Project Manager. The concerned workman has not produced any documentary evidence to show that he was further appointed by the Management of Heavy Engineering Corporation. The workman admitted in his evidence that after completion of the project in Madhya Pradesh his service was terminated automatically through the Contractor. The Labour Court on the basis of the evidence of the concerned Workman and other evidences found that the concerned workman was neither appointed nor dismissed from the service by the management of Heavy Engineering Corporation. The concerned workman never proceeded against the contractor through whom he was appointed on daily wages. The concerned contractor is also not a party in the instant reference case. The Labour Court therefore rightly held that the legality and validity of appointment or termination of the concerned workman by the Contractor cannot be adjudicated in absence of the Contractor. 10. As noticed above, the terms of reference was whether concerned workman was direct workman of the Heavy Engineering Corporation and whether his termination was proper. The Labour Court therefore rightly held that the legality and validity of appointment or termination of the concerned workman by the Contractor cannot be adjudicated in absence of the Contractor. 10. As noticed above, the terms of reference was whether concerned workman was direct workman of the Heavy Engineering Corporation and whether his termination was proper. Taking into consideration, the evidence brought on record by the concerned workman, the Labour Court rightly answered the reference holding that the concerned workman was not the employee of Heavy Engineering Corporation. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the award passed by the Labour Court. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ application which is accordingly dismissed. Writ dismissed.