JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. The petitioner who are the workmen represented by the Secretary, Bihar, Colliery Kamgar Union, Hirapur, Dhanbad has come against the award dated 31st January, 1994 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 152 of 1992 whereby the tribunal has answered the reference against the workmen but held that the management can not refuse to keep the concerned workmen in employment as casual mazdoors as and when occasion will arise but as a matter of right they cannot claim their engagement in future. 2. It appears that the appropriate government in exercise of its power conferred by Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act referred the following dispute to the tribunal for adjudication : "Whether the action of the management of M/s. Coal Mines Planning and Design Institute Ltd. in terminating the services of the workmen S/Shri Dadan Prasad, Somnath Biswas and Anil Kumar Pd. Survey Mazdoors w.e.f. 24.2.1989 is justified? if not, to what relief the said workmen are entitled? 3. The case of the concerned workmen is that they have been working as permanent Chairmen/Survey Ma/doors at C.M.P.D.I.L. since 14.1.1982, 17.7.1980 and April, 1983 respectively against permanent vacancy to the satisfaction of the management. It is alleged that the management with ulterior motive did not allow them to complete 240/190 days attendance in a calendar year. It is further alleged that the Management allowed junior workmen to complete 240/190 days attendance and they were accordingly regularized in service. So far the concerned workmen are concerned, they were stopped from their work w.e.f. 24.2.1989 illegally and arbitrarily against the provision of the standing orders. 4. The management on the other hand denied the claim of the concerned workmen and submitted that the management undertakes survey work at different places for the purpose of prospecting planning and designing project. As the projects are to be learned in new area, the area requires to be surveyed and the coal reserves are required to be ascertained by making bore holes and ascertaining availability of coal at a particular area. While cleaning the survey line and also for cutting jungles and barbecues growth the management has been engaging survey mazdoor on casual basis as per requirement. It is stated that the survey work is not carried out through out the year and on all days of a month. While cleaning the survey line and also for cutting jungles and barbecues growth the management has been engaging survey mazdoor on casual basis as per requirement. It is stated that the survey work is not carried out through out the year and on all days of a month. The case of the management is that the concerned workmen were engaged as survey mazdoors within Region No. 2 of the management purely on casual basis. They were paid their wages on daily rated basis and they did not put 240 days attendance in a calendar year. They were engaged for a fixed duration and after expiry of their duration, their services automatically stood terminated. 5. The concerned workmen although claimed to have been working as survey mazdoors against permanent vacancies for the last 7 yeas but no documentary evidence was proved to substantiate this fact. On the other hand, the management proved the appointment letters which were marked Ext. M series. These appointment letters speak of simply engagement for 30 days only and purely temporary against casual nature of work and will stand terminated automatically on expiry of 30 days. The management examined some of the officers to substantiate their case. 6. The Tribunal, after considering those documents including the appointment letters which the concerned workmen also admitted, came to the conclusion that the concerned workmen were engaged on casual basis. The Tribunal recorded the following finding : "Regularization of the casual workmen was not very to the management of C.M.P.D.I.L. The management admitted that even casual workmen could be regularized provided they were in continuous service as defined under Section 258 of the I.D. Act. It is the consistence case of the management that the concerned workmen never completed 240 days attendance in a calendar year. The concerned workmen did not produce any document to prove that they were in continuous service. MW 1 stated he used to perform duty roughly 225 to 230 days attendance in a calendar year. The question is if the work was continuous and the management intended to victimize the concerned workmen by not allowing them to complete 240 days attendance, then in case of stoppage of the concerned workmen from their duty some other must have been engaged. There is no evidence as to who worked in place of the concerned workmen even for a few days. There is no evidence as to who worked in place of the concerned workmen even for a few days. In the circumstances the allegation that the concerned workmen were not allowed to complete 240 days attendance merits no consideration. Ext. M-4 series are the photocopy of the contingent labour bills showing number of days worked by some of the concerned workmen. The days are not adequate to complete the requirement of continuous service. Similarly Ext. M-5 is the attendance chart showing attendance of some of the concerned workmen in different years. The attendance as shown falls short of the basic requirement of continuous service." 7. Considering all these facts the tribunal held that the action of the management in terminating the services of the concerned work men is neither illegal, arbitrary nor unjustified. However, the tribunal directed the management to keep the workmen in employment if and when occasion will arise and also to consider the desirability of their regularization in service if they qualify the test of continuous service in future. 8. Mrs. M.M. Pal, learned counsel for the concerned workmen submitted that the management did not produce the entire attendance register and other statutory documents as a result of which the total days of attendance of the concerned workmen could not be calculated. Learned counsel submitted that the working days calculated by the tribunal is based on the submission of the management and not based on any records. Learned counsel relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Workmen of American Express International Banking Corporation v. Management of A.E.I.B. Corporation, reported in 1985 (51) FLR 481, submitted that the term actually worked under the employer does not mean only those days when the workman actually worked and paid his wages, rather, the entire period of engagement is to be counted for the purpose of deciding whether the workman completed 240 days. 9. As noticed above, the Tribunal after considering, the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, found that the concerned workmen did not complete the required number of days for the purpose of claiming benefit, rather, it was proved that the appointment of the concerned workmen was purely on casual basis and for a Specified period. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal. It is well settled that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot go into the factual aspect of the matter particularly when the finding of fact is based on appreciation of evidence. Admittedly, the concerned workmen did not raise objection to the non-filing of the entire attendance register, rather, the attendance register was produced and proved by the management to show the period the concerned workmen worked. In such circumstance, the finding of the Tribunal cannot be challenged in a writ proceeding on the ground that the relevant; and material evidence adduced before the labour court was insufficient or inadequate. In this connection reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of P.G.I. of Medical Education and Research. Chandigarh v. Raj Kumar, 2001 (2) SCC 54 . 10. For the aforesaid reason I do not find any strong reason to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. No relief can be granted to me petitioner. This writ application is dismissed.