JUDGMENT : S.C. Parija, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated 03.12.2007, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, in Industrial Dispute Case No. 9 of 2003, holding that the members of the petitioner Union are not the employees of the Management and therefore they are not entitled to demand anything from the Management and accordingly the workmen are not entitled to any relief. 2. On a perusal of the impugned award it is seen that the State Govt. in the Labour & Employment Department had made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the following disputes: 1. "Demand No. 2: Whether the Employees members of Private Bus Owners Employees Union, Bhadrak are entitled to enhancement of wages by the management of Bhadrak Bus syndicate, Bhadrak? If so, what would be the quantum? 2. Demand No. 5: Whether the Employees Members of Private Bus Owners Employees Union, Bhadrak are entitled to payment of Medical Advance by the management of Bhadrak Bus syndicate, Bhadrak? If so, what would be the quantum? 3. Demand No. 6: Whether the employees of Bhadrak Bus Syndicate are entitled to be supplied dress by the Management of Bhadrak Bus Syndicate? If so, what would be the direction? 4. Demand No. 7: Whether the employees of Bhadrak Bus Syndicate, Bhadrak are entitled to House Rent allowance @ 7.5%. 5. Demand No. 10: Whether the Welfare fund is required to be constituted for the employees by the management of Bhadrak Bus Syndicate, Bhadrak ? If so, what would be the details? 3. Learned Tribunal considering the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, has come to find that the members of the petitioner's Union are not employees of the Management-opposite party no. 2 and therefore they are not entitled to any relief. 4. On going through the impugned award it is seen that the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration the deposition of M.Ws. 3, 5 and 6, who have stated that they are working as Hawkers in the Bus Stand and they were never employed by the Management. The witnesses have further stated that their signatures have been obtained on the pretext of giving them job, which has been utilized for institution of the present case against the Management. 3, 5 and 6, who have stated that they are working as Hawkers in the Bus Stand and they were never employed by the Management. The witnesses have further stated that their signatures have been obtained on the pretext of giving them job, which has been utilized for institution of the present case against the Management. M.W. 4 has also stated in his deposition that his signature has been taken on the assurance of providing him a job and when he came to know that the paper with his signatured has been misutilised, he has filed an affidavit. M.Ws. 1 and 2 have specifically stated that the members of the petitioner Union were never the employees of the Management. 5. Considering the oral evidence of M.Ws. 1 to 6 and the evidence as per Exts. A to M, which are affidavits of some alleged members of the petitioner Union, there is no doubt that the members of petitioner's Union were never the employees under the Management and a false case has been foisted by the Union. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of the learned Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, so as to warrant any interference. 7. Writ petition being devoid of merits, the same is accordingly dismissed. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. Final Result : Dismissed