MUKUL MUDGAL J. ( 1 ) ( 2 ) WITH the consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up today for final hearing. ( 3 ) THIS writ petition challenges the Award dated 15th October, 1999 by Labour Court No. III in I. D. No. 58 of 1993. The respondent No. 1 by his statement of claim had sought regularization as a Garden Chaudhary in M. C. D. The Labour Court while rejecting the plea of regularization but by noticing the long period over which respondent No. 1 had worked as a Garden Chaudhary since 2nd November, 1989 granted only the emoluments due to a Garden Chaudary. ( 4 ) THE main plea raised by Ms. Amita Gupta, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the MCD in challenge to the impugned award dated 15th October, 1999 is that the terms of reference do not entitle the workman/respondent No. 1 herein to claim the wages of a Garden Chaudhary. The relevant portion of the terms of reference reads as follows:- "whether Sh. Abid Raza Zaidi is entitled to be regularised as Garden Chaudhary and if so, from which date and what directions are necessary in this respect. " ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that once the claim for regularization was given up by the counsel for the workman as recorded in Para 14 of the impugned award dated 15th October, 1999, any order granting salary for the post of Garden Chaudhary without regularization could not have been passed. In my view this is too technical and cloistered a view of the terms of reference as it is settled law that the terms of reference should be construed broadly. Even though the terms of reference had referred the claim, whether the workman was entitled to be regularized, it did not divest him of the right of claiming the lesser relief that is only wages for the post of Garden Chaudhary without claiming regularization. Accordingly, this plea has no merit and stands rejected. Even though the terms of reference had referred the claim, whether the workman was entitled to be regularized, it did not divest him of the right of claiming the lesser relief that is only wages for the post of Garden Chaudhary without claiming regularization. Accordingly, this plea has no merit and stands rejected. ( 6 ) IN any case in the impugned Award dated 15th October, 1999 the Tribunal has relied upon the respondent No. 1 evidence and the following documents to arrive at a finding that the workman, i. e. , respondent No. 1 herein had been working as Garden Chaudhary since 2nd November, 1989:- ( 7 ) IN my view the finding based upon the above documents is a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal upon appreciation of documentary evidence and no reason has been given by the counsel for the MCD why so many documents were issued by the MCD except the fact that these documents and all the letters were issued to the respondent No. 1/workman at his behest because he wrongly described himself as working a Garden Chaudhary in MCD. Except Ex. MW1/m7 and Ex. MW1/m11 all the documents are documents of MCD. It strains credibility when it is contended that the MCD was so gullible so as to prepare 32 documents merely because the respondent No. 1 wrongly posed as a Garden Chaudhary. It is evident, therefore, that these documents support the stand of the respondent No. 1 that he had all along been working as a Garden Chaudhary. Official documents and their effect cannot be wished away on the specious plea that all these documents emanated upon the workman s false claims. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, there is no merit in the writ petition which is dismissed with no order as to costs. Consequently the interim order dated 22nd November, 2001 stands vacated. Since the MCD has enjoyed an interim stay of the operation of the impugned award in this Court for almost 2 years all arrears as a garden chaudhary payable as per the award dated 15th October, 1999 shall be paid to the respondent No. 1 on or before 31st October, 2003, failing which these arrears would carry interest at 10% from today until the date of payment.