ORDER N.N. Tiwari, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the award dated 31st October, 2006 passed in Reference Case No. 4 of 2003 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi, where the petitioners' termination has been held justified. The award has been upheld merely on the ground that the learned Presiding Officer has not considered the evidences and materials on record in right perspective and has arbitrarily come to the finding that the termination of the concerned workmen was justified. 2. It has been stated that the concerned workmen were engaged as daily rated muster roll workers and were posted in Electric Supply Sub Division of Purnea and Bhagalpur. Since the place of posting was far away from their home district, they had made representations and considering the same, were transferred to Daltonganj and Garhwa, respectively. 3. Subsequently, the services of the petitioners were terminated. They preferred writ petition, being CWJC No. 2284 of 1992 (R), which was allowed, directing the Management to regularizing the services of the petitioners. The respondent- Board, thereafter, preferred Letters Patent Appeal, being L.P.A. No. 302 of 1995. In the said appeal, the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside, giving liberty to the workmen to raise industrial dispute and seek relief in accordance with law. 4. In view of the order passed in the appeal, the termination order was given effect to by the respondent-Board vide order dated 8th October, 1996. 5. The petitioners, thereafter, raised industrial dispute. The dispute was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Ranchi. Before the Labour Court, the workmen as well as the Management filed their written statement. The concerned workmen reiterated that they were engaged as muster roll workers and on transfer were posted to Daltonganj and Garhwa, respectively. The Management in their written statement denied the said fact. 6. According to the Management-Board, the petitioners had fraudulently entered into service only on the basis of purported transfer order, though they were never engaged by any competent authority. When the same was detected, the petitioners were terminated. It has been stated that they had never joined the department at the alleggd initial place of engagement. 6. According to the Management-Board, the petitioners had fraudulently entered into service only on the basis of purported transfer order, though they were never engaged by any competent authority. When the same was detected, the petitioners were terminated. It has been stated that they had never joined the department at the alleggd initial place of engagement. It has been stated that even there is no provision for transfer of casual muster roll workers nor any document is available regarding their transfer and the entire claim of the petitioners is base on fraud and forged documents. 7. On the basis of the said factual statement, learned Presiding Officer framed the following specific issues: (i) Whether the termination of the services of the workmen is justified? (ii) Whether termination order dated 8th October, 2006 is legal and justified? (iii) Whether the workmen are entitled to get any relief? 8. The workmen as well as the Management produced their oral as well as documentary evidences. After through discussion and consideration of the evidences on record, the learned Labour Court came to the finding that the concerned workmen failed to prove their claim of engagement by the department. They could not produce the letter of engagement on muster roll or any such evidence. It was found and concluded that concerned workmen had never entered in the services of the respondent-Board as muster roll workers and there was no question of their transfer and that the respondent-Board was justified in terminating the services of the concerned workmen. The reference has been, thus, answered against the workmen. 9. On close perusal of the impugned award and the facts, evidences and materials, available on record, as well as submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties, I find no illegality in the award. The learned Labour Court has thoroughly discussed the facts, evidences and materials on record and after due consideration has recorded the said factual finding. The finding on facts cannot be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.