1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.150/2007. (STATE & ANR. VS. SMT. SITA DEVI & ORS.) DATE OF ORDER : 19.05.2008. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mrs. R.R. Kanwar for the petitioner. Mr. D.K. Parihar for the respondents. By this petition for writ, a challenge is given to the award dated 24.06.2005 passed by the Labour Court, Bhilwara. The appropriate government by its notification dated 25.8.98 referred an industrial dispute for its adjudication to the Labour Court in the terms as to whether termination of the workman Smt. Sita Devi w/o Shri Madan Lal resident of Tehsil Shahpura, district Bhilwara by her employer the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Bhilwara w.e.f. 1.1.91 is just and proper, if not, then for what relief the workman is entitled? The Labour Court after considering the evidence available on record, reached at the conclusion that the workman Smt. Sita Devi was in continuous service of the employer and she was retrenched from service without adhering mandatory condition precedent to do so. The Labour Court, while declaring the retrenchment illegal, ordered for reinstatement of the respondent workman with 50% of the back wages. 2 While assailing validity of the award aforesaid, the argument advanced is that the court below failed to appreciate that the appointment of the workman was made for a fixed term. It is also asserted that the workman was not in continuous service of the employer as required under Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also examined the award impugned. A specific finding of fact is given by the Labour Court to the effect that the workman was employed with the petitioner industry on 1.8.89 and continued up to 31.12.90, as such, she has completed the continuous service as prescribed under Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. I do not find any error in the finding of fact referred above. The issue as to whether the appointment of the respondent workman was for a fixed term was not at all substantiated by any evidence by the employer before the Labour Court, therefore, such finding cannot be examined by this Court in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The award impugned, for the reasons mentioned above, does not warrant interference of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 3 The petition for writ is accordingly dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/