JUDGMENT : 1. Heard counsels for the parties. 2. Present writ petition has been filed against the Award dated 14.02.2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur, in Reference No.11 of 1991 whereby and where under, reference has been answered against the workman. 3. From the pleading and argument, it appears that the father of the petitioner was in regular employment of the respondent company in the year 1979. As per the scheme, on completion of certain period of service, one of the dependants was to be kept in dependent register and dependant has to be offered employment as and when work is available. Dependants are also given preference when regular employments are made. 4. In the present case, claim of the petitioner being one of the dependants has been kept in dependant register and has been assigned work as per availability. Subsequently, on being selected, he has been found medically unfit and as such, appointment has not been given to him. 5. On being medically unfit, industrial dispute has been raised, which has been referred as Reference No.11 of 1991. The terms of reference is as follows: “Whether termination of service of Shri Ramdeo Rajak Ticket No.8823/11869/6 is proper and justified? If not, whether he is entitled to reinstatement or any other relief?” 6. The Labour Court after considering the pleadings has framed four issues, which are as follows: (i) Whether not offering permanent employment to the workman amounts to termination? (ii) Whether the workman has worked for 240 days in any one year? (iii) Whether the reference made by the government is not proper and is against the demand made by the workman? (iv) To what relief, if any, the workman is entitled to? 7. The finding has been recorded on the basis of evidence available on the record vide order dated 14.02.2005 that the petitioner has not worked 240 days in any calendar year rather he has worked few days in a year. 8. Further, as per the scheme, the petitioner’s name was in the dependant register and he has been kept as dependant. He has been given preference and selection has been made but finally, appointment has not been offered as because he has been found medically unfit. Thus, claim of the petitioner has been denied by the management on being found medically unfit. 9. He has been given preference and selection has been made but finally, appointment has not been offered as because he has been found medically unfit. Thus, claim of the petitioner has been denied by the management on being found medically unfit. 9. It is trite that in case of temporary or casual employment, medical fitness is not necessary but extending regular employment, medical fitness is sine qua non. In the present case, although concerned workman has been selected but he has not been offered appointment just because of medical unfitness. Medical fitness is suitability to the post and it is necessary for appointment. 10. Thus, ground of rejection is very much justified and accordingly, learned Labour Court has rightly answered the reference against the workman. 11. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the award dated 14.02.2005 passed in Reference No.11 of 1991. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.