ORDER : By way of instant petition, petitioner has assailed award dated 01.07.2013 passed by learned Presiding Judge, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala, H.P. (for short, “the Tribunal”) in Reference No. 210/2012. 2. Petitioner raised an industrial dispute and a reference was made to learned Tribunal by the appropriate Government in following terms: “Whether termination of the services of Shri Rajiv Chandel S/o Sh. Laiq Ram, R/o Village Talward, P.O. Chandpur, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P. by the (1) The Director of Industries, Shimla1 (2) The Production Officer, Silk Seed Division, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. w.e.f. 28.8.2008 without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back wages, past service benefits, seniority and amount of compensation the above worker is entitled to from the above employer?” 3. Petitioner claimed before the learned Tribunal that he had worked as daily wage Beldar from 3.4.2002 till 28.8.2008 continuously in Silk Centre, Kothi Majher. He was transferred as daily wage worker to the Government Seri Culture Centre, Kandrour in March, 2003. Petitioner thus laid challenge to the termination of his services being in violation of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. Respondents, by way of reply filed before the Tribunal, admitted that the petitioner was engaged as daily wager w.e.f. 3.4.2002. The respondents further submitted that the engagement of petitioner was in a project named as ‘Gold Mines’. According to respondents, petitioner had worked in the aforesaid project on daily wages till 30.6.2004 whereafter his services were disengaged for paucity of work. Later, petitioner worked purely on contract basis as Chowkidar at Government Seri Culture Centre, Kandrour from 1.5.2005 till 28.8.2008. The said engagement of petitioner was stated to be result of an offer made by him to work purely on contract basis at the rate of Rs.1800/- per month. The sanction for the post of Chowkidar, against which petitioner had worked, was withdrawn on closure of CDV project. 5. Learned Tribunal held that the petitioner worked from 26.3.2002 to 30.6.2004 on daily wage basis in Gold Mine Project. Reliance was placed on the mandays chart, Ext. RW-1/B, pertaining to petitioner. It was also held that as per seniority list, petitioner was the junior most and three other persons senior to him were also disengaged even prior to the disengagement of the petitioner in the project. Reliance was placed on the mandays chart, Ext. RW-1/B, pertaining to petitioner. It was also held that as per seniority list, petitioner was the junior most and three other persons senior to him were also disengaged even prior to the disengagement of the petitioner in the project. Further, it was held that on 2.5.2005 vide letter Ext.RW-1/E the Incharge, Government Silk Centre, Kandrour sought permission to engage services of a Chowkidar on contract basis. The requisite sanction/permission was accorded on 11.7.2005 vide Ext. RW-1/F to engage services of Store Chowkidar purely on contractual basis after inviting the quotations. Three persons including petitioner submitted their respective quotations and the rate quoted by petitioner being lowest, he was engaged as a Chowkidar purely on contract at Rs.1800/- per month. The services of petitioner as Chowkidar were dispensed with after 28.08.2008 as the store articles were disbursed/ distributed and there was no further requirement of such job. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 7. It is on record that the petitioner worked on daily wage basis in Gold Mine Project w.e.f. 03.04.2002 till 30.06.2004. There is nothing to suggest that the petitioner continued to work in the same project thereafter. Rather, the record reveals that petitioner remained disengaged from 30.06.2004 till 01.05.2005, whereafter the engagement of petitioner was as contract Chowkidar on specific terms. The engagement of petitioner as Chowkidar was in pursuance to specific time bound requirement to manage the stores and such requirement was placed by the Incharge Government Silk Centre, Kandrour vide letter Ext. RW-1/E on 02.05.2005. The proposal was accepted by respondent No.2 vide Annexure RW-1/F dated 11.07.2005. Resultantly, the quotations were invited for the grant of work as Chowkidar from interested candidates. The petitioner was one of the three candidates, who submitted their quotations and the rate of petitioner was found lowest. Petitioner accordingly was engaged as Chowkidar by the Incharge, Government Silk Centre, Kandrour on payment of fixed monthly amount of Rs.1800/-. 8. Thus, the earlier engagement of petitioner in Gold Mine Project till 30.06.2004 cannot be said to have continued w.e.f. 01.05.2005, which definitely was a distinct and separate engagement as Chowkidar on different terms. Petitioner did not challenge his disengagement from Gold Mine Project and the decision of respondents in that respect attained finality. 8. Thus, the earlier engagement of petitioner in Gold Mine Project till 30.06.2004 cannot be said to have continued w.e.f. 01.05.2005, which definitely was a distinct and separate engagement as Chowkidar on different terms. Petitioner did not challenge his disengagement from Gold Mine Project and the decision of respondents in that respect attained finality. The engagement of petitioner as Chowkidar was purely contractual and after the work came to an end, the disengagement of petitioner cannot be said to be violative of his rights under the Industrial Disputes Act or otherwise. 9. Learned Tribunal has passed the award after taking into consideration the material placed on record by the parties. I have not found any illegality or perversity in the impugned award. The findings recorded by learned Tribunal are borne from the material on record. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to take benefit from the cross-examination of RW-1 by asserting that the said witness had admitted the continuous employment of petitioner from 26.03.2002 till 27.08.2008. The contentions so raised, however, cannot be countenanced for the reason that the witness (RW-1) had also clarified that the petitioner had worked in the Gold Mine Project till 30.06.2004 and thereafter he worked from 01.05.2005 to 27.08.2008 as Chowkidar on contract. Hence, there is no continuity in the service. Petitioner having been disengaged from his daily wage job in Gold Mine Project had remained silent and had thereafter accepted the new assignment as Chowkidar on contract basis without any reservation. 11. It is more than settled that while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court is not to sit as Court of appeal over the decisions of Tribunals constituted under special laws. It is only in the case where the award passed by the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal suffers from absolute illegality or perversity that interference may be required. In the given facts of the case, no interference is warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.