- (1.) The petitioners have impugned the award of Labour Court, Ludhiana dated July 10, 1981, in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) The Punjab Government referred to Labour Court, Ludhiana the following industrial dispute between the workman respondent No. 2 and management of M/s. Christian Medical College & Brown Memorial Hospital, Ludhiana, petitioner No. 1, for adjudication under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , on October 24, 1978 :- "Whether termination of services of Sh. Masih Charan workman is justified and in order ? If not, to what relief/exact amount of compensation is he entitled ?" The Labour Court, on appreciation of the evidence led by the parties, found that the petitioner No. 1 was an industry and the reference was maintainable. It also found that the workman respondent No. 2 was not engaged in a supervisory capacity. The termination of services of the workman was held to be not justified. The workman has put in 18 years service with the management. Taking into view the totality of circumstances, the Labour Court ordered reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and also directed payment of 35% back wages. The management has come up in writ petition to this Court. I have gone through the award of the Labour Court and find no illegality therein. The Labour Court, on appraisal of the evidence led by the parties, gave a firm finding of fact that the termination of the services of the workman was not justified. The entire evidence produced before the Labour Court was duly considered by it. This Court cannot act as an appellate Court. The finding of fact reached by the Labour Court as a result of appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by a tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding the tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned order. It is not pointed out in the pleadings that any evidence was ignored or not admitted into evidence.
(3.) For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed but with no order as to costs.;