WA 141/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR J CHELAMESWAR HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Aggrieved by judgment dated 6-2-08 in WP(C) No.5553/01 the unsuccessful writ pet itioner therein preferred the present appeal. The second respondent herein was admittedly employed as a driver by the appellants on a casual basis. The case of the second respondent is that he was so appointed on 22-9-9 4 and worked till 25-5-97 initially on a pay of Rs.1500/- per month and later Rs .2000/- per month. It was further the case of the second respondent that while h e was so working for the above mentioned period his service was discontinued on 25-5-97 by the appellant herein without following the procedure prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, more particularly sec 25(F) of the Act. With the a bove mentioned allegation the second respondent raised an industrial dispute whi ch was referred by the Govt of India, as the appellant herein is a fully owned c ompany of the Govt of India, for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal, Guwaha ti constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal by its award dated 10-8-2000 recorded that there is a viola tion of the provision of Section 25(F) of the ID Act insofar as the workman, i.e . that second respondent, is concerned and, therefore, held that the termination of the second respondent herein is illegal and consequently directed reinstatem ent of the workman/second respondent. Aggrieved by the same the appellant herein preferred the above mentioned writ petition which came to be dismissed by the judgment under appeal of the le arned Judge. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant Mr MZ Ahmed is that the second respondent did not put in the requisite service of 240 days to enable him to claim the benefit of the provision prescribed under Sectio n 25(F) of the ID Act. The submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant would requi re re-appreciation of the evidence on record on the face of the concurrent findi ngs both by the Industrial Tribunal as well as the learned Judge of this court t hat the workman in fact satisfies the requirement of Section 25(F) of the ID Act to claim the benefit of the said Section. The writ petition itself was filed for a writ of certiorari. The settled position of law is that this court in exercise of its power under Art 226 of th e Constitution does not re-appreciate evidence already recorded by a subordinate court. That being the case, the question whether the concurrent conclusion arri ved at by the Tribunal and the learned Judge on the question whether the respond ent workman did in fact worked for 240 days to seek the benefit of Section 25(F) of the ID Act, in our view, cannot be examined in a writ appeal. We, therefore, see no merits in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed at the a dmission stage.