Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. Heard Smt. Mahima Kushwaha, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anjani Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1. 2. The award of the Labour Court accepting the version of the employer has been challenged by the workman on the ground that the Labour Court has misdirected itself on the evidence adduced, particularly the statement of Mr. T. Sahadevan which indicates that the status of the employment of the petitioner was permanent, and was not casual, and the break in service was artificial which was an unfair labour practice. It was also urged that juniors to the petitioner had been retained and the attitude of the employer in terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground of loss of confidence was absolutely erroneous. 3. Smt. Mahima Kushwaha, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Labour Court has recorded findings against the evidence on record that the employer failed to controvert and rebut the allegations made by the petitioner workman before the Labour Tribunal. She contends that the findings are evasive, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 4. Replying to the aforesaid submissions, Sri Mishra submits that the employment of the petitioner was for a fixed period and after expiry of the said period there was no requirement of the petitioner workman. He further contends that the own request of the petitioner in his application was for temporary employment and he had voluntarily accepted the terms and conditions of the engagement which was monthly in nature i.e. from 1.9.of 1976 to 31.12.1976. He further contends that the engagement in the "Ghee" manufacturing unit was casual because of the nature of the job which was only a seasonal operation for the by product of Ghee. He contends that this was because of the non-continual and inconsistent supply of milk. 5. The contention further is that loss of confidence of the petitioner workman is on account of the fact that he had gone on hunger strike thereby causing hindrance in the smooth running of the Unit and a law and order situation. Learned Counsel further submits that no evidence was brought forth which could be treated as credible evidence to believe that juniors as named by the petitioner in his statement had been retained in service by the employer. Learned Counsel further submits that no evidence was brought forth which could be treated as credible evidence to believe that juniors as named by the petitioner in his statement had been retained in service by the employer. He, therefore, submits that the findings recorded by the Labour Court on all scores do not suffer from any infirmity and are findings of fact, therefore, no case is made out for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Having considered the submissions and the findings recorded by the Labour Court, the first issue relating to the status of the employment of the petitioner has been dealt with by the Labour Court and it has been found that as a matter of fact, the petitioner had admitted the status of employment in his cross-examination including the letter of appointment with which the petitioner was confronted. The reply that had he not accepted the terms of appointment, he would not have been given employment is therefore an afterthought and a feebled defence without any material to support this in force. 7. To my mind, such an explanation is of no consequence, inasmuch as, the petitioner with his open eyes accepted those terms of employment and, therefore, the status of employment is not permanent. The finding of the Labour Court is categorical to that effect on the basis of the statement of the witness of the employer that the nature of engagement was casual. 8. Having perused the statement as also the findings recorded, the inference drawn by the Labour Court cannot be faulted with as the nature of employment and the period for which the employment was made has also been discussed. There can be found no perversity with the aforesaid evidence which has been dealt with by the Tribunal. Hence this issue also stands answered against the workman. 9. The other issue relating to juniors to the petitioner being retained is concerned, the Court finds that in the statement of the workman he had taken several names indicating that these persons were junior to him and they had been engaged. The employer has denied the same. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to the statement of Mr. T. Sahadevan to corroborate the stand taken by the him. The aforesaid statement of Mr. The employer has denied the same. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to the statement of Mr. T. Sahadevan to corroborate the stand taken by the him. The aforesaid statement of Mr. T. Sahadevan nowhere admits that any junior has been retained. 10. The Tribunal has recorded a finding to the effect that no reliable evidence has been led to indicate the retention of such juniors particularly the dates of appointment of such workers have not been provided for by the workman. 11. Unfortunately, in spite of this point having arisen on the face of it, the writ petition is absolutely silent and no pleadings have been made in the writ petition in relation to the aforesaid issue. This Court is therefore unable to find any method so as to examine the correctness or otherwise in the finding, inasmuch as, the only statement made in the writ petition is in paragraph 11 of the writ petition. The petitioner states that the Labour Court has not correctly appreciated this issue. This, in my opinion, would not be a sufficient pleading to demonstrate that the Labour Court has not come across any cogent evidence led by the workman relating to the date of appointment of those persons who are alleged to be juniors to him. In view of this, the Court does not find any merit in this writ petition. 12. The same is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed._