1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.548/2009 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3612/1995 with D.B. Civil Misc. Stay Appl. No.974/2009 State of Raj. vs. Dhillu & Anr. Date of order :: 20.11.2010. HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Vikram Yadav for Mr. Dinesh Yadav, AAG for appellant. *** (PER HON'BLE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J.) For the stated reasons, the delay is condoned. The application u/s.5 of Limitation Act is allowed and the matter is heard on merits. This appeal is directed against the judgement of learned Single Judge dated 30.1.2009 by which challenge to the award passed by the learned Labour Court, Bharatpur at the instance of the appellant was repealed and the writ petition filed thereagainst was dismissed. Mr. Vikram Yadav learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Single Judge erred in law in not properly appreciating the ratio of judgement of this Court in General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi vs. Judge, Central Industrial Tribunal & Ors.-1991 (1) RLR 577, which was not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. The learned Labour Court had 2 erred in law in holding that even if the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable, the respondent workman would still be entitled to benefit of Section 25G of the Act and Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes Rules. Learned Labour Court also failed to consider that reference at the instance of the workman was delayed by four years. Judgement passed by learned Single Judge also suffered from those legal infirmities. Learned Single Judge also erred in not taking into account that the grant of back wages to the extent of 25% was contrary to settled proposition of law. Since the respondent-workman had not worked with the appellant for all this time, he was not entitled to back wages on the principle of diagnon. The Labour Court in, the present case held retrenchment of the respondent-workman with effect from 1.3.1983 as illegal because evidence proved that workmen Sohan Lal, Hari Singh and Prabhu were all juniors to the petitioner and were yet retained in service, whereas the respondent- workman was removed. On this aspect the learned Labour Court has analysed the evidence of witnesses produced by the management also. It was held that no seniority list was prepared prior to terminating service of the respondent-workman. All these are essentially findings of fact not open to interfere by this Court in exercise of its 3 supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court in its supervisory jurisdiction is not supposed to act as an appellate court, as rightly held by the learned Single Judge. We therefore do not find any infirmity in the judgement of the learned Single Judge dated 30.1.09. This appeal is therefore dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. (ARUN MISHRA),ACTING CJ. RS/-