ANJANI KUMAR, J. The petitioner-employer, aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, U. P. Meerut, dated 14th April, 1983, in Adjudication Case No. 7 of 1978, approached this Court by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The following dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication: "kya SEWAYOJAKON DWARA APNE SHRAMIK SHRI KUSHAL PAL SINGH, PUTRA SHRI MAULE, CHAUKIDAR KO VARSH 1976-77 KE SEASON SE SEASONAL CHAUKIDAR NA BANAYA JANA UCHIT THATHA/athwa VAIDHANIK HAI? YADI NAHIN, TO SAMBANDHIT SHRAMIK KYA LABH/kshatiputi PANE KA ADHIKARI HAI TATHA ANYA KIS VIVRAN SAHIT ?" 3. After receiving notices from the Labour Court the parties exchanged their pleadings and adduced evidence. 4. In short the workman has taken the case that he was a seasonal Chaukidar working since 1972-73 but he has not been declared as seasonal Chaukidar for the crushing season 1976-77. The workman has further taken up the case that several persons, who were junior to him as seasonal Chaukidar, have been declared as seasonal Chaukidar. The workman concerned has arbitrarily been denied. It is admitted case of the parties that his employment is governed by the provisions of standing orders applicable to the Vacuum Pan Sugar Factories. 5. The employers on the contrary have taken the case that the workman was purely a temporary employee and not a seasonal employee. They have given details of number of days worked by the workman concerned in the crushing seasons 1972-73 to 1977-78 which are in the form of wage slip. On the strength of the aforesaid wage slip it is argued before the Labour Court and repeated before this Court that the workman concerned did not work beyond the dates mentioned in the aforesaid chart. 6. The Labour Court dealt with the aforesaid argument on behalf of the employers and arrived at the conclusion that the wage slip can only demonstrate that the workman concerned has been paid wages for this period but it does not prove the case of the employers that the workman was employed for other days than those days of the crushing season. In this view of the matter the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the employers have illegally deprived the workman concerned from declaring him as seasonal Chaukidar with effect from 1976-77. In this view of the matter the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the employers have illegally deprived the workman concerned from declaring him as seasonal Chaukidar with effect from 1976-77. The Labour Court has further recorded a finding that it is admitted between the parties that several junior persons to the workman concerned have already been declared seasonal Chaukidars but the workman concerned has not been declared so. The Labour Court has further relied upon document, particularly the form issued under the provisions of standing orders which is prepared with regard to seasonal employees only. In these circumstances the Labour Court has recorded the finding as stated above. 7. Before the Labour Court it has also been stated that the job of Chaukidar is purely temporary in nature and it is on the discretion of the employer to decide as to whether any particular workman should be made regular seasonal Chaukidar or not. The Labour Court has dealt with this argument also and it is against the employers. The Labour Court, therefore, answered in favour of the workman concerned that he should be declared seasonal Chaukidar with effect from 11-12-1976 and further he will be entitled for all the benefits of a seasonal Chaukidar with effect from the same date. 8. Sri R. D. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the findings recorded by the Labour Court are perverse but there is no material on the basis of which this argument can be substantiated or supported with. 9. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court. In these circumstances this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. Sri R. D. Khare has then submitted that under the interim order the workman must have been paid his wages and there is no complaint that the interim order has not been complied with. Therefore, the workman concerned is entitled for nothing except the backwages. 11. In view of the above the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .