Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner -workman aggrieved by the award which has been answered by the labour court in pursuance to the reference referred to below made by the State Government whereby the petitioner -workman's claim for designation and pay scale of clerk/typist has been denied by the labour court : [VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED] The case set up by the petitioner-workman concerned before the labour court was that the petitioner was appointed as skilled Coollie in the year 1970 on which post he was regularised in the year 1973 and he was designated as skilled Coollie but he was asked to perform the duties of clerk and he has been doing so regularly since 1973. He made several representations to the employer but no reply was given. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court which has been decided by its order dated 9th December, 1988, directing the authorities concerned to decide the petitioner's representation. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the employer has rejected the representation of the petitioner. As a consequence of the rejection of the petitioner's representation, a demand was made and the matter was referred to the labour court as stated above. The employer have stated before the labour court that the petitioner was appointed as skilled Coollie and is working as such till date. He has been transferred from one division to another division in the same capacity and wherever the petitioner-workman has worked, there is no post of clerk/typist. In these circumstances, the averments made by the petitioner-workman concerned is incorrect that he has ever been asked to perform the duties of the clerk/typist. The labour court after considering the evidence on record recorded a finding that the workman concerned has admitted in his cross-examination that he has never been given any order in writing to work or perform the duties of typist. He has got himself frequently transferred from one division to another division and has always been transferred in the capacity of skilled Coollie. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Khan, has argued that the labour court has not considered the case set up by the petitioner while rejecting the petitioner's case in the impugned award. Another limb of the same argument advanced by Sri Khan is that the documents which were already on record, have not been considered by the labour court and the finding arrived at by the labour court that the petitioner has never worked as clerk/typist suffers from manifest error of law in as much as the same is perverse. The employer have produced the service -book of the petitioner wherein always he has been designated as skilled Coollie. The employer have also produced the material that the superior officers have written to the immediate officer that the petitioner should always be avoided from doing the work of dispatcher or clerk. The petitioner has himself admitted in his cross -examination that he has never been given any order in writing for the work of clerk/typist. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to several documents that have been annexed to demonstrate that the petitioner has been performing/working the duties of the clerk/typist. The labour court has considered these materials and have recorded the findings that from time to time the workman have no doubt performed the work of typist/clerk. The case set up by the workman that he performed the duties of clerk/typist since 1973 has not been established from the material and evidence on record. This being the findings of fact, this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the labour court unless the same has been demonstrated to be perverse or incorrect. In my opinion, the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the findings recorded by the labour court is either perverse or incorrect. In this view of the matter, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The interim order, if any, is vacated. There is no order as to costs.;