- (1.) M. Katju, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned award dated 24-11-95. The reference order was as to whether the termination of service of the respondent No. 3 on 24-9-87 was valid and proper. Ear lier by the order dt. 12-2-93 it was held that the respondent workman was not perform ing supervisory functions. THIS order has discussed the evidence on the record. In the order dt. 12-2-93 it has been stated that the petitioner has not filed any documentary evidence to show that the respondent No. 3 was performing the work of supervisory na ture. The petitioner in his oral evidence alleged that some persons were working under the respondent No. 3 and the work of respondent No. 3 was supervisory in nature, but he has not given the name or number of persons who were alleged by working under the supervision of the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 and his witness Anil Kumar stated that the respondent No. 3 was not doing supervisory work but only work of Turner. THIS being a finding of fact, I cannot interfere with the same in writ jurisdiction. As regards the award, it has been stated therein that the petitioner had terminated the services of workman respondent No. 3 on 24-9-87 without holding any enquiry and without complying with S. 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Dispute Act. Thus, there is no infirmity in the impugned award. The writ petition is dis missed. Petition dismissed. .;