ORDER Tapen Sen, J. 1 .Heard Mr. G.M. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Baban Lal, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 2. The petitioner in the instant writ petition has challenged the Award dated 16.03.2001 passed in Reference Case No. 83 of 1997 whereby and whereunder he held that the action of the Management in not providing employment to Manoj Kumar (respondent No. 4) was not justified and accordingly directed the Management to provide employment to him within thirty days from the date of publication of the Award. 3. Mr. G.M. Mishra, with reference to the order dated 13.07.2001 argued that the only question which arises for determination by this Court is as to whether the order of the Tribunal in directing the employment of the respondent No. 4 out of turn without taking into consideration the fact that persons similarly situated and empanelled prior to the respondent No. 4 (as evident from Annexure-1), was correct or not. He further submits that the Management keeps a separate record of those employees who have been discharged on the basis of periodical medical examination and other employees who are discharged otherwise than on medical grounds. 4. The facts of this case are not much in dispute because the father of respondent No. 4 namely Ganesh Singh was appointed on 04.07.1977 and thereafter he was discharged from service on account of having been found medically unfit with effect from 25.07.1994 after he had completed seventeen years of service. Mr. G.M. Mishra learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that under the old National Coal Wage Agreement IV (N.C.W.A.-IV in short), a dependent of a medically discharged employee would have been provided employment but so far as TISCO is concerned, there was a fool note appended thereto suggesting and giving liberty to the Management to deal with the issue in accordance with their own rules and regulations. Subsequently, the N.C.W.A.- IV was substituted by N.C.W.A.-V and by reason of the new Coal Wage Agreement, there was also a foot- note which said that in the case of TISCO, the matter would be settled at the bipartite level. However, it is relevant to state that in the N.C.W.A.-V, it has specifically been mentioned that this would supersede all past agreements. However, it is relevant to state that in the N.C.W.A.-V, it has specifically been mentioned that this would supersede all past agreements. Upon perusal of the Award, it is evident that the Management did not file any bipartite agreement after coming into force of said N.C.W.A.-V. 5. Thus, the argument of Mr. G.M. Mishra that the foot-note of N.C.W.A.-IV should have been made applicable in the case of the Management, cannot be accepted because N.C.W.A.-IV apparently stood repealed on coming into force of N.C.W.A.-V. It was therefore the duty of the Management to produce the bipartite agreement before the Labour Court but it opted not to do so as a result whereof, the Labour Court had no option but to proceed on the basis of a consensus made by them and which has been recorded at paragraph-3 of the said Award and the same reads as follows :-- "3. .......... However, the management has admitted that his name has been registered by the concerned workman, Ganesh Singh and he will be given employment in the due course of time in case of any vacancy is available that also according to seniority list regarding employment to dependent......" 6. Mr. G.M. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the right to employment of a dependent after his father or mother having been found medically unfit, cannot be deemed to be automatic and this would be subject to vacancy. Mr. G.M. Mishra further draws attention of this Court to Annexure-1 to suggest that the name of Manoj Kumar (respondent No. 4), son of Ganesh Singh, was duly registered at Serial No. 14 but there are other persons between Serial Nos. 1 to 13 whose parents had also been declared medically unfit and discharged from duties prior to Ganesh Singh and therefore Manoj Kumar, cannot be appointed unless and until the others in order of seniority of that seniority list are appointed. 7. The aforementioned arguments of Mr. Mishra initially appeared to be reasonable but upon noticing the contents of the counter affidavit and with special reference to Annexures-A to E thereof (see running pages 100 to 112), it is evident that people who were discharged on grounds of having been found medically unfit even much after Ganesh Singh, their wards have been given employment and the names of these persons are not even included between Serial Nos. 1 to 13 of Annexure-1. 1 to 13 of Annexure-1. To be more precise, the details as disclosed from Annexures-A to E are as follows :-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Annexures Name of Date of Name of Date of Employee Discharge Wards Employment -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Annexure-A Md. 23.09.2000 Ekram Khan 25.05.2002 Islam -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Annexure-B Binod 16.09.2000 Murari Kumar 22.02.2001 Singh Singh -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Annexure-C Baski 17.12.2001 Adarsh 16.10.2002 Singh Kumar Singh -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Annexure-D Jamuna 15.01.2001 Surendra 30.08.2001 Yadav Yadav -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Annexure-E Md. 12.10.2001 Md. Quasim 23.04.2002 Sakur -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - 8. Considering the aforementioned facts which now stands disclosed from Annexures-A to E, it is evident that the Management has given employment to wards of employees who were discharged on being found medically unfit much later than the father of the petitioner who was discharged on the same ground on 25.07.1994. 9. In that view of the matter and taking into consideration the concession made by the Management as recorded in para 3 of the Award of the Labour Court, it does not appear that the stand of the Management, even before this Court that appointment will be made on the basis of vacancy, is reasonable or justified. That apart, this Court also takes notice of the fad that it is exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where this Courts power of judicial review is limited. This Court, being a Court of record will not substitute its findings with the findings of fact of the Labour Court as if it is an appellate authority unless, the order is perverse or mala fide. Reference in this context may be made to the case of "Bank of India and Anr. v. Degala Surya Narayan" reported in " AIR 1999 SC 2407 " arid in the case of "Indian Overseas Bank v. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers Union" reported in " (2000) 4 SCC 245 " wherein the Honble Supreme Court has barred an Article 226 Court from re- appreciating evidence in matters relating to pure finding of facts. v. Degala Surya Narayan" reported in " AIR 1999 SC 2407 " arid in the case of "Indian Overseas Bank v. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers Union" reported in " (2000) 4 SCC 245 " wherein the Honble Supreme Court has barred an Article 226 Court from re- appreciating evidence in matters relating to pure finding of facts. The findings recorded by the Labour Court in this case clearly go to show that even the Managements own witness M.W.-1 namely Vijay Pandey who was the Manager (Personnel) of Jamadoba Colliery had admitted in his cross-examination that there was a separate provision for a workman who was found unfit at the periodical medical examination which was to be conducted after interval of every five years and if at the end of the said periodical examination he was found unfit then the dependents must get the employment under the company along with other monetary benefit. 10. Taking into consideration the fact that the other persons similarly situated and who were medically found unfit much after the father of the respondent No. 4, this Court cannot help but express that the petitioners have acted in a discriminatory manner in so far as the respondent No. 4 is concerned. That being the position, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the Award. 11. Before parting with this case, it would however only be appropriate to direct that the petitioners would now issue necessary appointment letter to the respondent No. 4 in pursuance of the impugned Award but the period spent after pronouncement of the Award will not be construed to confer any right or entitlement upon him to claim status from the date indicated by the Labour Court. The appointment will be prospective and shall not confer any retrospective benefit upon him. 12. In that view of the matter, the petitioner shall do the needful within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall however be no order as to costs.