Petitioner was actually employed through a contractor; and that he was on daily wages for different periods, namely, 51 days, for the period from 16th September,1994 to 30th November,1994, 14 days for the period between 1st September,1995 to 15th September,1995, 20 days from the period between 5th January,1996 to 15th February,1996 and 25 days for the period from 2nd September,1996 to 30th September,1996. This shows that the Petitioner never put in continuous service of 240 days in any calender year. In any event, considering the record produced by the Board which shows that between 1996 and 1999, the Petitioner actually worked through a contractor and that after 4th August, 1999, he did not work for any day, the Labour Court has drawn a legal inference that the Petitioner worked on daily wages as a Peon through a contractor and never put in service of 240 days or more. Accordingly the provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act were not attracted. These are matters of appreciation of evidence. The impugned Award of the Labour Court on appreciation of evidence, as reflected in the Award, cannot be termed either as perverse or impossible. This is not a case where the award is based on no evidence or any irrelevant matter is considered by the Labour Court or relevant or genuine material is disregarded by the Court, for arriving at the award.
