SHARMA, J. - (1.) BY way of this petition the petitioner has prayed to quash and set-aside the award dated 6. 7. 2000 passed by respondent No. 1 in LCR No. 535/1998, Goverdhan vs. Manager, Vidhayak Niwas, and the claim petition filed by respondent No. 2 be dismissed.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case according to the petitioner are that respondent No. 2 was engaged on daily wages as labour on 1. 7. 1988. He stopped coming to work from 6. 6. 95. He raised an industrial dispute. The State Government referred the dispute to respondent No. 1 for adjudication. He submitted a statement of claim before respondent No. 1 in which it was submitted that the respondent therein engaged him on the post of `farrash' from 1. 7. 78 and his services were terminated w. e. f. 6. 6. 85, as provisions of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short `the Act of 1947') were not complied with as no retrenchment compensation was paid. He further stated in the statement of claim that no seniority list was prepared and persons junior to him like Chhouth Mal Meena, Kalu Ram, Narain Singh, Hanuman etc. , are still working. Petitioners filed reply to the statement of claim in which it was stated that the respondent No. 2 have stopped coming to work on his own from 6. 6. 1985. The violation of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 was denied for the reason that the respondent No. 2 had left the work of his own. The learned Labour Court after hearing the parties, passed an award on 6. 7. 2000 and held that the termination of the services of respondent No. 2 form 6. 6. 1985 was invalid and directed the reinstatement with continuity in service and payment of half the wages. The petitioners being aggrieved with the award dated 6. 7. 2000 has preferred this petition before this Court. In Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. , 2003 (3) SC 524, Hon'ble the Apex Court has held as under:      " The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior Court or tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisor power under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate Court or the tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or reweigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision. " I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record including the award dated 6. 7. 2000 passed by learned Labour Court. The wide jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 has to be exercised with great circumspection. The High Court cannot constitute itself into an appellate Court over Tribunals. Article 226/227 is a device to secure and advance justice and not otherwise. In a case of this nature, it is true, the High Court exercising the power of judicial review, would not interfere with the discretion of a Tribunal unless the same is found to be illegal or irrational. In an application for a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing an award of an Industrial Tribunal, the jurisdiction of the High Court is very limited. It can quash the award, inter alia, when the Tribunal has committed an error of law apparent on the face of record on when the finding of facts of the Tribunal is wholly perverse. It is also a settled law that in the exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court acts only in a supervisory capacity and not as an appellate tribunal. It does not review the evidence upon which the inferior tribunal proposed to base its conclusion, it simply demolished the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or manifestly erroneous, but does not, as a rule, substitute its own view for those of the inferior tribunal. In the present matter, I do not find any jurisdictional error, perversity and illegality in the award dated 6. 7. 2000 passed by learned Labour Court, No. 2, Jaipur in LCR No. 535/1998. The finding of the learned Labour Court is based on the basis of material placed before him. There is no error apparent on the face of record. I, therefore, do not find any jurisdiction to interfere with the award dated 6. 7. 2000. In my view the writ petition does not call for any interference. The same is, therefore, dismissed. The award dated 6. 7. 2000 passed by learned Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur is maintained.
(3.) THERE shall be no order as to costs. .;