JUDGMENT 1. Though this appeal is reportedly time-barred by 47 days but having regard to the circumstances while ignoring the delay, we have considered the matter on merits. 2. After having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the material placed on record, we are unable to find any reason to consider interference in the order dated 16.12.2013 as passed in CWP No. 14087/2013 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has declined to interfere in the award dated 30.04.2013 as made by the Industrial Dispute Tribunal, Bhilwara (for short 'the Tribunal') in Industrial Dispute Case No. 21/2010. 3. The State Government by its notification dated 05.08.2010 referred the following points of disputes for determination to the Tribunal:- " 1- D;k izkFkhZ Jfed Jh Hks: yky ,oa vizkFkhZ lfpo] uxj fodkl U;kl] HkhyokM+k ds e/; fu;ksftr@fu;kstd dk laca/k jgk gS\ ;fn gka] rks 2- D;k lfpo uxj fodkl U;kl] HkhyokM+k }kjk Jfed] Jh Hks: yky iq= Jh eaxh yky ( }kjk egkea=h] Hkkjrh; etnwj la?k] HkhyokM+k ) dks mldh fu;qfDr ls nks o"kZ dh fujarj lsaok ds mijkar fnukad 1-8-1999 ls v)Z LFkk;h ?kksf"kr ugha djk mfpr ,oa oS/k gS\ ;fn ugha] rks Jfed fdl jkgr dks izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ " 4. The Tribunal recorded the finding in favour of the respondent workman that he was under the employment of the appellant-Urban Improvement Trust, Bhilwara (for short 'the Trust'); and rejected the contentions of the Trust that his engagement was only through a contractor. The Tribunal in this regard, inter alia, referred to the statement of the witness who appeared on behalf of the appellant- Trust as also the omission on the part of the appellant-Trust to place on record the particulars of the alleged Contractor or the documents showing payment to or through the Contractor. 5. The Tribunal, accordingly, answered the reference in favour of the workman and directed the appellant to declare him semipermanent w.e.f. 01.07.2005. The learned Single Judge found, after scrutinising the material on record that the finding as recorded by the Tribunal was not suffering from any perversity. The learned Single Judge, while concluding on the matter, also referred to Clause (s) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act, 1947') as amended by Rajasthan Act No.34 of 1958, whereby the person employed with a contractor was included in the definition of workman. 6. The learned Single Judge, while concluding on the matter, also referred to Clause (s) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act, 1947') as amended by Rajasthan Act No.34 of 1958, whereby the person employed with a contractor was included in the definition of workman. 6. Seeking to question the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it is contended on behalf of the appellant that there had been a perversity in the findings of the Tribunal and that calls for interference by this Court. It is also submitted that even if Clause (s) of Section 2 of the Act, 1947 is taken into consideration, the relief of semi-permanent status could not have been granted by the Tribunal. 7. In our view, the submissions remain baseless and bereft of substance. A perusal of the award dated 30.04.2013 makes it clear that the Tribunal had meticulously examined the record as also the statement of the witness produced on behalf of the appellant and had also taken into consideration the fact of omission on the part of the appellant to produce on record the relevant vouchers, attendance registers and other documents in relation to the employment of the respondent workman. 8. The view taken by the Tribunal after due appreciation of the evidence does not appear suffering from any perversity so as to call for interference in the writ jurisdiction. One the finding of fact that the respondent workman has been under the employment of the Trust is reached and confirmed, the other aspects of the matter are not even required to be dilated upon because the relief granted by the Tribunal is consequential to the status of the workman, as found.The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed.Special appeal dismissed. *******