JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the award dated 25.08.2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 58/1997 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) whereby, the reference was answered in favour of the Management/respondent holding that the demand of the petitioner for reinstatement in the employment as Over man in Basudeopur Colliery and full wages for the work done by him during 06.05.1992 to 17.05.1993 is not justified. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he completed his Over man ship examination from Bhaga Mining Institute and was sent for vocational training at Basudeopur Colliery of M/S BCCL from 23.03.1991 to 06.05.1991. Thereafter, the petitioner was allowed to undergo Post Diploma Practical Training (PDPT), (Mining) for the subsequent period i.e. from 07.05.1991 to 05.05.1992 and for that period he was paid stipend. It is claimed by the petitioner that after completion of two years’ training, he was allowed to perform regular and permanent duty of an Over man against regular and permanent vacancy from 06.05.1992 and he worked till 17.05.1993 with full satisfaction of the Management. However, when the petitioner started demanding regular wages of Over man, he was stopped to work after 17.05.1993. The petitioner represented the Management, but of no avail and then he raised an industrial dispute, which was finally referred to the learned Tribunal vide Reference No. 58 of 1997. The term of the reference was “Whether the demand of the workman Shri Bhola Singh regarding reinstatement in the employment as Over man in Basudeopur Colliery and full wages against the work done by him during 06.05.1992 to 17.05.1993 is justified? If so, to what relief is the workman entitled?” The Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad answered the reference vide order dated 25.08.2009 in favour of the Management holding that the petitioner was never appointed in the Basudeopur Colliery and as such the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement and wages is not justified. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal passed the impugned award without considering the written statement, evidence on record and also the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is further submitted that Ext. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal passed the impugned award without considering the written statement, evidence on record and also the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is further submitted that Ext. W-3 and the report of the Labour Enforcement Officer clearly indicate that the petitioner has worked continuously for the period from 06.05.1992 to 17.05.1993 on the post of Over man. It is also submitted that the action of the respondent-Management is against the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’). It is further submitted that the certificate issued by the Management Witness No.1 clearly shows that the petitioner worked continuously from 06.05.1992 to 17.05.1993. Admittedly, the petitioner worked in Basudeopur Colliery under the Management of M/S BCCL from 06.05.1992 to 17.05.1993, but thereafter he was arbitrarily stopped from working in the said colliery by the respondent-Management without complying the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the said Act. Therefore, the learned Tribunal committed serious error in answering the reference against the petitioner-workman and not reinstating him in service. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner puts reliance on the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bank of Baroda Vs. Ghemarbhai Harjibhai Rabari reported in (2005) 10 SCC 792 and in the case of Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur reported in (2011) 6 SCC 584 and submits that the source of employment, method of recruitment, terms and conditions of employment/contract of service, quantum of wages/pay and mode of payment are not the relevant factors for deciding whether or not a person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thus, though the petitioner might have worked on the oral order of the then Manager of the said colliery, he cannot be taken out of the ambit of the definition of 'workman' for the purpose of Section 25F of the said Act and consequently, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the provisions of Section 25F of the said Act. Since the petitioner had worked from 06.05.1992 to 17.05.1993 i.e. more than a year, which is undoubtedly covered by the provisions of Section 25F of the said Act, non-compliance of which entitles the petitioner for reinstatement in the service in Basudeopur Colliery of M/S BCCL. 5. Since the petitioner had worked from 06.05.1992 to 17.05.1993 i.e. more than a year, which is undoubtedly covered by the provisions of Section 25F of the said Act, non-compliance of which entitles the petitioner for reinstatement in the service in Basudeopur Colliery of M/S BCCL. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Management submits that the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal is a pure question of fact and the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may interfere with the same, only if the finding in the award is perverse and suffers from error of record or error of jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the provisions of Section 25F of the said Act is not applicable in this case, as the petitioner worked in the concerned colliery as a trainee and he was not an employee of the respondent. It is further submitted that the petitioner was never appointed in the Basudeopur Colliery. The petitioner failed to produce any document to show any proof of his appointment such as: appointment letter, identity card, CMPF No., pay slip, Form-B Number or any other relevant document. The petitioner was allowed to undergo Post Diploma Practical Training (Mining) in the Basudeopur Colliery, which is evident from Exhibits M-1 & M-2. It is further submitted that the attendance might have been marked in PDPT register for underground training record, but it is wrong to say that the petitioner’s work was supervised by the Management. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the present case is a glaring example of litigation through which the litigant i.e. a workman has tried to procure a job for himself from the Management of M/S BCCL on a framed and cooked up industrial dispute. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent while relying on the written statement filed on behalf of M/S B.C.C.L during industrial adjudication, submits that as a matter of fact, there is absolutely no employer employee relationship between the Management of Basudeopur Colliery and so called workman Bhola Singh (the petitioner), therefore, no provision of the said Act is attracted and hence, the reference itself was bad in law and not maintainable. Since self proclaimed workman i.e. the petitioner had no employment in the said colliery, no retrenchment ever took place. Thus, the petitioner’s claim for reinstatement is simply irrelevant and ill-motived. Since self proclaimed workman i.e. the petitioner had no employment in the said colliery, no retrenchment ever took place. Thus, the petitioner’s claim for reinstatement is simply irrelevant and ill-motived. In fact, on the recommendation of the Regional Central Apprenticeship Adviser (RCAA) for one year practical training as PDPT (Mining), the Management of M/S BCCL had agreed to offer the petitioner training facility in the underground mine of Basudeopur Colliery vide letters dated 22.04.1991 & 06.05.1991 (Exts. M-1 & M-2 respectively) on certain conditions. In response to the aforesaid offer, the petitioner, who had already taken up and done vocational training in the Basudeopur Colliery from 23.03.1991 to 06.05.1991 free of cost, gave his letter of unconditional acceptance on 06.05.1991 and requested the General Manager (H.R.D) to accept his joining as PDPT trainee. Ext. W-3 is also a certificate of practical experience issued on 27.05.1993 under the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957, which cannot be said to be a letter of appointment/employment, so as to make the petitioner entitled to seek the benefits of Section 25 of the said Act. The petitioner cannot also be treated as daily rated worker, piece rated worker or monthly rated worker. Annexure-6 to the writ petition (Ext. W-3) is a certificate of practical experience granted by the Manager, Basudeopur Colliery to the petitioner under the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957 showing that the petitioner has undergone practical training from 06.05.1992 to 17.05.1993 to make him eligible to appear in the examination for appointment of Forman/Over man/Surveyer etc. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the relevant documents placed on record, it cannot be said that there was an employer-employee relationship between the Management of Basudeopur Colliery and the petitioner. It also cannot be said that the petitioner was ever appointed for gainful employment in Basudeopur Colliery. During the industrial adjudication, the petitioner has not been able to produce any appointment letter, identify card, C.M.P.F Number, pay slip, Form-B Number in support of his contention that he was ever employed in the said colliery under M/S BCCL. On the recommendation of the Regional Central Apprenticeship Adviser (RCAA), the petitioner was permitted to undergo one year practical training as PDPT (Mining). The letter dated 22.04.1991 issued by the General Manager (H.R.D) is to be treated as an offer for providing training facilities as PDPT (Mining). On the recommendation of the Regional Central Apprenticeship Adviser (RCAA), the petitioner was permitted to undergo one year practical training as PDPT (Mining). The letter dated 22.04.1991 issued by the General Manager (H.R.D) is to be treated as an offer for providing training facilities as PDPT (Mining). Accordingly, the petitioner was allowed to take underground practical training in Basudeopur Colliery, but on the conditions mentioned in the said letter. The office orders dated 22.04.1991 & 06.05.1991 (Exts. M-1 & M-2 respectively) clearly indicate that the said offer was for providing training facilities of PDPT (Mining) to the petitioner. Condition No.1 of Ext. M-1 and Condition No. (b) of Ext. M/2 make it further clear that the said training would not entitle the petitioner to claim any appointment/service in M/S BCCL. Though the petitioner was allowed to undergo PDPT (Mining) wherein he performed duties of Over man from 06.05.1992 to 17.05.1993, yet the training for the said period cannot be treated as an employment in absence of any letter appointing him as Over man. Further, the petitioner has also failed to substantiate that he received any wages from the respondent. The petitioner cannot take advantage of the fact that his attendance was marked during the period of underground training, as marking of attendance is the routine task in the operation of mining and the same cannot be construed that the petitioner was in gainful employment during the period in question. Ext. W-3 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) clarifies the fact that the said certificate dated 27.05.1993, which was issued by the Directorate General of Mines Safety under the signature of the Manager, Basudeopur Colliery as the Certificate of Competency Examination under the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957. Under the aforesaid facts, the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the petitioner was offered to undergo Post Diploma Practical Training (Mining) under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961 for a period of one year and therefore there has been no employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the respondent-Management and as such the question of retrenchment of the petitioner does not arise and, accordingly, it has rightly been held that the provisions of Section 25F of the said Act is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8. In the case of Bank of Baroda Vs. 8. In the case of Bank of Baroda Vs. Ghemarbhai Harjibhai Rabari (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the facts of the said case, has held that even if the workman had no letter of appointment, the employer having failed to rebut the case of the workman, he was entitled to reinstatement with back wages, as he worked for more than 240 days in a year. However, in the present case, the respondent-Management has vehemently rebutted the contention of the petitioner that he had been employed for the period from 06.05.1992 to 17.05.1993 in the concerned colliery. The respondent- Management has successfully established its case during industrial adjudication that the petitioner was merely allowed to undergo PDPT (Mining) in Basudeopur Colliery and there has been no employer employee relationship between them. Thus, the ratio of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Bank of Baroda Vs. Ghemarbhai Harjibhai Rabari (Supra) will have no application in the facts of the present case. 9. Further, in the case of Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur (Supra), the Honble Supreme Court has held that the source of employment, method of recruitment, terms and conditions of employment/contract of service, quantum of wages/pay and mode of payment are not the relevant factors for deciding whether or not a person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The ratio laid down in the said case is also not applicable in the fact situation of the case in hand, as there has been no employment of the petitioner in the Basudeopur Colliery of M/S BCCL. It has already been discussed hereinabove that the petitioner failed to establish that he had been in employment of M/S BCCL for gain for the period from 06.05.1992 to 17.05.1993. On the contrary, the respondent-Management has successfully proved that the petitioner had merely undergone PDPT (Mining) during the period in question. Moreover, the petitioner also failed to show that during the said period any wages/salary was paid to him by the respondent-Management. 10. On the contrary, the respondent-Management has successfully proved that the petitioner had merely undergone PDPT (Mining) during the period in question. Moreover, the petitioner also failed to show that during the said period any wages/salary was paid to him by the respondent-Management. 10. In course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has put much stress on the letter dated 06.03.1995, issued by the Labour Enforcement Officer, Katrasgarh in support of his submission that during the PDPT (Mining) for the period from 06.05.1992 to 17.05.1993, the petitioner was deployed by the Manager of Basudeopur Colliery to perform the underground work/job of Over man ship. The said letter of Labour Enforcement Officer dated 06.03.1995 will be of no help to the petitioner, as the same was issued for different purpose. Moreover, the contents of the said letter cannot be accepted, at this stage since the same was not exhibited during the industrial adjudication and thus, it was not subjected to test of cross-examination by the respondent-Management. The petitioner can not put reliance on a document in a writ proceeding, which was not exhibited during the industrial adjudication. 11. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, I find no infirmity in the impugned award dated 25.08.2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 58/1997 and thus, there is no reason to interfere with the same. 12. The writ petition, being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.