JUDGMENT : APARESH KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Respondent. 2. Against the impugned Award dated 14.12.1999 passed in Reference No. 219/1994 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad, the present writ petition has been instituted in the year 2010 without any explanation at all. Following reference was made by the Central Government, Ministry of Labour by order dated 26.08.1994, which reads as under. "Whether the action of the management of M/s TISCO Ltd. (colliery) in terminating the services of Sri Santoshi Prasad Yadav w.e.f June 1987 is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to? 3. As the facts in brief unfold from the pleadings and perusal of the impugned Award itself, one Gulab Gope was a permanent employee at Central Stores, Jamadoba under the Management of Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited (TISCO) who worked from 14.12.1951 for 36 years. Under the policy of the Company to give employment to the dependent of the employee, the employee could register the name of his dependent after completion of minimum period of 15 years of service in the Company. The employee Gulab Gope, father of the concerned workman Santoshi Prasad Yadav, petitioner herein, filed an application to the Management that his son Santoshi Prasad Yadav be considered for permanent absorption as he is going to superannuate after completing 36 years of service. The Management accepted the request of Gulab Gope and offered permanent employment to the concerned workman by letter dated 23.12.1987. The workman Santoshi Prasad Yadav was offered job of Miner/Loader on the strength of his service. The concerned workman did not appear in the Central Hospital for examination of his fitness. He did not even appear before the Medical Board at Central Hospital, Jamadoba either. Thereafter, father of the concerned workman made an application on 11.08.1988 that his son Santoshi Prasad Yadav who was offered employment, is not able to work in underground mine and his second son Shankar Yadav should be offered his job as his dependent in place of his first son. The recognized Union represented the case of Gulab Gope. Thereafter, Management offered employment to Shankar Yadav, second son of Gulab Gope by letter dated 11.10.1988 and as such, said person is still in employment of the Company as Miner. 4. The recognized Union represented the case of Gulab Gope. Thereafter, Management offered employment to Shankar Yadav, second son of Gulab Gope by letter dated 11.10.1988 and as such, said person is still in employment of the Company as Miner. 4. This dispute was raised by the workman Santoshi Prasad Yadav after lapse of few years which has led to reference. Two points for consideration were framed by the Learned Tribunal. (i) Whether the concerned workman has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year from 1980 to June 1987 and if so, is his termination violative of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act; and (ii) Is this concerned workman, Santoshi Prasad Yadav entitled to any relief, if so, which relief? 5. It transpires from the discussion of the material evidence in the impugned Award that Exhibit W-1 filed by the workman, is an appointment letter which shows that he was appointed for three months purely on temporary basis and his service could be terminated at any time either on expiry of three months or earlier without assigning any reason. Exhibit W-2 are four pay slips for the month of January 1983, where he worked for 25 days, in April 1985, he worked for five days, in September 1984, he worked for 23 days and in September 1982, he worked for 23 days. Exhibit W-3 is a letter written by Gulab Gope to the Management for providing employment to his dependent Shankar Yadav and exhibit W-4 series are medical certificates which are all after alleged termination of employment. Exhibit W-5 is a representation of the concerned workman dated 04.08.1990. 6. On the other hand, Management adduced Exhibit M-1 and M-1/1 which are copy of petition dated 11.04.1988 filed by Gulab Gope to the Management requesting that since his elder son Santoshi Prasad Yadav is not willing to accept the job of Miner/Loader in the underground Mine, his second son Shankar Yadav should be given employment in his place. On the basis of these material exhibits and pleadings, learned Tribunal held that the concerned workman had not put in 240 days in a calendar year. He was appointed on purely temporary basis under the policy of the Company to appoint dependent of its employee. On the basis of these material exhibits and pleadings, learned Tribunal held that the concerned workman had not put in 240 days in a calendar year. He was appointed on purely temporary basis under the policy of the Company to appoint dependent of its employee. However, since he did not accept the same and even did not turn up for medical examination, his father's employment was offered to his second son who is still continuing in the employment. Learned Tribunal therefore held that since the workman had failed to prove termination by the Company and that, he did not accept permanent job of the Company himself, no case for violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act arose. 7. Material discussion of the pleadings on record and evidence produced during the reference also, do not make out any case of error of law or on fact on the part of the Learned Tribunal in answering the reference against the workman. There is no explanation offered for 11 years of delay in assailing the award either by the petitioner. On consideration of the aforesaid facts and discussions made herein-above, this Court does not find any merit in the writ application warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.