ORDER Tapen Sen, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.. Bakshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. M.M. Pal, learned counsel of the respondent No. 2. 2. The petitioner (M/s. Food Corporation of India), has challenged the validity or otherwise of the award passed on 8.8.1997 in Reference Case No. 24 of 1992 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad whereby and whereunder the Presiding Officer of the said Tribunal answered the reference against the Management and in favour of the workman by holding that : "The action of the Management of Food Corporation of India, Ranchi, in not regularizing the services of the workman, Shri Suberen Sarkar and denying wages etc. equal to regular Class-IV employees with effect from 13.5.1982 is not justified. The Management is directed to regularize the service of the workman as Class-IV Watchman /Sweeper (as per documentary proof of educational qualification produced) from January, 1988 and to pay full back wages with all other benefits admissible to Class- IV employees minus the amount already paid to him from October, 1989 onwards within two months of publication of the award in the Gazette of India." 3. Mr. S. Bakshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the circular dated 6.5.1987 was not applicable, as the workman was a part time casual worker who fetched water in buckets filling pitchers in the district office at Ranchi and that he worked only for one or two hours in a day and got his payment on the basis of the number of buckets of water supplied and/or pitchers filled. 4. Countering the submissions of Mr. S. Bakshi, Mrs. M.M. Pal has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraphs 19, 21, 22, 24, 25 and 26 of the impugned award and submitted that the Management, before the Tribunal, were not able to deny the contention of the Union representing the concerned workman that prior to 1989, he was being paid time rated on monthly basis, and that after MW 2 (Mr. R.C. Prasad) had joined as- District Manager, Food Corporation of India, and who worked from September, 1989 to September, 1993, it was he who had passed an order by which the system of payment to the workman on the basis of number of buckets filled was introduced, obviously to deny the claim of the workman and for this sudden change, no notice was given to the concerned workman. This Court finds from the observations of the learned Tribunal at paragraph 19 that this contention was argued by the concerned workman, but it was not replied to by the Management at all. 5. It is further evident, upon reading of paragraphs 2 and 21 of the impugned award, that the union representing the concerned workman, attempted to bring their case sweep of a circular dated 6.5.1987 issued by the Headquarters of Food corporation of India, which, inter alia laid down that casual workmen who had worked for 90 days on or before 2.5.1986, were to be regularized on Class-Ill and IV posts as per their qualifications and that as many as 75 casual workman had been regularized as watchmen Class-IV. According to the respondent No. 2, the concerned workman was a 7th Class passed individual who had completed more than 90 days as on 2.5.1986 and he was therefore, also entitled to reap the benefits of the circular dated 6.5.1987 especially when juniors were given a favorable treatment by regularizing them. 6. However, upon perusal of the award and upon being pointed out by Mr. S. Bakshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it is not clear as to whether the concerned workman was a Class-IV passed individual or a Class-VII passed individual and perhaps that was why the Tribunal passed a conditional award observing that if the workman produces necessary documentary proof that he had passed Class-VII then he should be regularized as a Class-IV workman and if not, he should be regularized as a sweeper. 7. It further appears from paragraph 22 read with paragraph 21 that other persons have been given the benefit of the circular by regularization leaving out the petitioner. 8. Mrs. 7. It further appears from paragraph 22 read with paragraph 21 that other persons have been given the benefit of the circular by regularization leaving out the petitioner. 8. Mrs. M.M. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submitted that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed as has been done to other similar writ petitions filed by the petitioner against other workmen who had also claimed the benefit of the circular dated 6.5.1987. 9. The aforementioned argument of Mrs. M.M. Pal appears to be correct inasmuch as Annexure A appended to the counter affidavit shows that it is an order dated 24.9.1997 passed in CWJC No. 4139 of 1996 (R). That case was also filed by the Food Corporation of India against an award by which regularization of service with back wages had been ordered. The stand of the Corporation therein was that the concerned workman had worked for only 3/4 hours in a day and that he was merely working and/or performing the job of a water carrier apart from opening and closing the godown and had worked only for 5-6 hours in a day. It is evident that writ petition was dismissed. 10. Beside the aforesaid, it is also evident from paragraphs 13 to 16 of the counter affidavit, that being aggrieved by the aforementioned order dated 24.9.1997 passed in CWJC No. 4139 of 1996 (R) (Annexure A to the counter affidavit), the Management had filed an appeal which was registered as LPA No. 514 of 1997 (R) before a Division Bench which was dismissed on 7.4.1998. That part, paragraphs 15 and 16 of the counter affidavit refers to other writ petitions filed by the Management, which were all dismissed. The counter affidavit refers to other Letters Patent appeals with a statement that they were also dismissed. It would, therefore, be worthwhile to quote paragraphs 13 to 16 of the counter affidavit: "(13) That this deponent states and submits that in CWJC No. 4139 of 96 (R) the Management challenged the Award dated 24.9.1997, passed in Ref. Case No. 23 of 92 wherein the same point was raised by the Management but ultimately it was dismissed by this Honble Court on 24.9.1997. Case No. 23 of 92 wherein the same point was raised by the Management but ultimately it was dismissed by this Honble Court on 24.9.1997. A xerox copy of the order dated 24.9.1997 passed in CWJC No. 4139 of 96(R) is annexed herewith marked as Annexure- (14) That an LPA bearing No. 514 of 97(R) was filed against that order dated 24.9.1997 which was also dismissed on 7.4.1998. (15) That in another writ petition bearing No. CWJC 1353 of 97(R) was also filed by the Management of FCI against the Award for regularizantion in view of the Circular dated 6.5.1987 and to pay the full wages which was also dismissed on 21.1.1998 against the order dated 21.1.1998 a LPA bearing No. 178 of 98(R) was also filed by the Management of FCI which has also been dismissed by a Division Bench of the Honble Court on 11.3.1999. (16) That this deponent further stated that regarding the regularization in view of the circular dated 6.5.19987 several references were referred for adjudication and almost in all cases it was awarded in favour of the concerned workmen and when ever it was challenged before this Honble Court, most of the cases namely in CWJC No. 2246 of 92 (R), CWJC No. 1195 of 91 (RL CWJC 2246/92 (R) in CWJC No. 4139 of 97 (R) and in CWJC No. 1353 of 97 (R) and LPA 514 of 98 (R) so filed by the Management of FCI has been dismissed only on the sole ground that no case is made out for interference with the finding of fact arrived by the learned Presiding Offices." (Italics by this Court) 11. It is well known that this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not act as an appellate authority of an award passed by an original Court namely a Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal, which gives its findings based on evidences and documents unless this Court comes to a conclusion that the award is either illegal, arbitrary, perverse or is of such a nature that it shocks the conscience of this Court. 12. Upon reading the contents of the impugned award and going through the pleadings, this Court finds that none of the aforementioned ingredients are present within the canvas on which the case of the parties has been portrayed before this Court. 12. Upon reading the contents of the impugned award and going through the pleadings, this Court finds that none of the aforementioned ingredients are present within the canvas on which the case of the parties has been portrayed before this Court. The scope of judicial review cannot be extended only for the mere asking for it and it cannot be used as a weapon to turndown an award which has been passed after coming to a definite conclusion based on proper evidence and scrutiny thereof. This apart, it appears that the Management1, on a number of occasions, had attempted to challenge and/or upset other awards but to no avail. On the contrary, it is found from a perusal of the different statements made in the counter affidavit as also from the copy of the order marked as Annexure A, that they failed in their attempts to get these awards set aside. 13. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the opinion that this writ petition must also fail and it is accordingly, dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 14. After the aforementioned order had been dictated, Mrs. M.M. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 pointed out that a supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents on 13.2.2004 stating inter alia therein that the concerned workman namely, Subcrcn Sarkar died on 4th June 2001 leaving behind his brother, namely, Pushpen Sarkar and his mother Smt. Dheera Sarkar (aged 65 years) and that the brother, namely, Pushpen Sarkar has already been appointed as a Class-IV casual workman in the year 1982 and was subsequently regularized in 1988. She further submits that in view of the dismissal of the writ petition, the only benefit that can now enure to the benefit of the concerned workman would be computation of money which can be calculated on the basis of the salary and/or scale which would have been given to him after deciding as to whether he was entitled to be regularized as a Class-IV employee or as a Sweeper taking into consideration, the conditional award made in paragraph 26 thereof. 15. 15. This Court, taking info consideration the aforementioned statment of the learned counsel appealing for the respondent No. 2 and while dismissing the writ petition, mandates the petitioner to do the needful as aforesaid after making necessary computation so that the award is given effect to. 16. While concluding, taking note of the fact that the concerned workman died on 4th June, 2001 leaving behind a widowed mother who was then aged 65 years, this, Court, ex debito justitiae. considers it appropriate to further mandate the petitioner to do the needful within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 17. Mrs. M.M. Pal submits that if any payments have been made, the Management will be at liberty to adjust the same, Mrs. M.M. Pal submits that since the brother has already been provided employment whatever benefit flows from the interpretation of this judgment, should now be conferred upon and confined only to the widowed mother of the deceased. Mr. S. Bakshi does not have any objection to the aforementioned submissions of Mrs. Pal.