IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7362 of 2009 MANOJ KUMAR SINGH Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha For the Union of India : Mr. P Tekriwal. ------------ 02. 02.07.2009 Claim of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a daily wage driver by the District Manager of Food Corporation of India, Darbhanga in the year 1999. A formal letter in this regard has been issued to him which is reflected in annexure-1. It is stated that subsequently his services was terminated which led to reference and raising of industrial dispute under section 10(1))(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The term of reference is quoted hereunder below for ready reference: “Whether the action of the management of FCI, Darbhanga in terminating the services of Sri Manoj Kaimur Singh who was engaged from 3.12.1999 to 11.8.2000 is legal and justified.” The tribunal after hearing the parties and evaluating the evidence on this issue has finally answered the reference by passing an award holding that there was no relationship of employee and employer between the workman and management of the Food Corporation of India since no appointment was made by the management of Food Corporation of India. In view of the above, holding the termination to be illegal does not arise. - 2 - Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the tribunal’s decision is per say illegal because annexure-1 by itself shows that the petitioner was appointed by the District Manager of FCI, Darbhanga on casual basis and no better evidence is required in this regard. There are some communications also to show that original certificates etc. were also asked from the petitioner to consider his case for regularization but instead of doing the same the management decided to throw him out. Learned counsel representing the Food Corporation of India however, submits that a plain reading of the award shows that there is absolutely no chit of paper which would establish that workman had any relationship with the management. Merely because he had worked as a driver of a contractor who was engaged by FCI for transportation work he does not gain the status of the employee of the management. Even otherwise all the evidences have been duly considered, discussed and it is only then that the finding has been arrived at. It is also submitted that in absence of any legal infirmity in the reasoning there is no occasion to interfere with the award in question. After going through the decision rendered by the tribunal and also the so-called annexure-1 which has been brought on record the Court can only observe that annexure-1 cannot be treated in isolation or as a fresh evidence to hold - 3 - that the tribunal has committed error of law. No amount of jugglery by the petitioner can establish his case at this stage because this Court is not an appellate authority or an authority to do reappraisal of new evidence which was never produced before the tribunal. There is no infirmity in the order or award. The writ application has not merit. It is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)