THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.34844 OF 1997 17TH FEBRUARY 2010. BETWEEN: R.S.AMBERKAR .. PETITIONER AND THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, VISAKHAPATNAM & OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.34844 OF 1997 O R D E R : This Writ Petition is filed against the order of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, in M.P.No.27 of 1994 dated 4th August, 1997, by the petitioner-workman who claims to have been employed by the 2nd and 3rd respondents who were contractors under the 4th respondent herein. The petitioner claimed that he was entitled to Rs.25,000/- pursuant to the agreement executed on 17.2.1994, Rs.22,071/- towards arrears of salary, Rs.10,000/- towards house rent allowance, Rs.2,000/- as one month’s notice pay and Rs.4,000/- towards leave salary (for two months) and compensation of Rs.3,000/- at the rate of 15 days salary per year and thus to a total of Rs.41,071/-. The 2nd and 3rd respondents herein did not choose to appear before the Tribunal and as such were set exparte. The 4th respondent contested the matter. On behalf of the petitioner-workman two witnesses were examined and Ex.W1 to W3 were marked. On behalf of the 4th respondent one witness was examined and Exs.M.1 to M.5 were marked. The Tribunal, in the order under challenge, observed that on 17.2.1994 the petitioner had entered into an agreement with the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein under Ex.W1 for payment of Rs.20,000/- towards full and final settlement of all his dues; by that date the petitioner had already made his claim before the Joint Commissioner of Labour under Ex.M.1; Ex.M.2 could not have been entered into without including the claim in full and final settlement; there was no reason for the petitioner not to put forth his claim before the Joint Commissioner of Labour if really any amount was due to him apart from his claim in Ex.M.1; if the amount under Ex.M.1 was still due the petitioner would have mentioned the same through the Union under Ex.M.2 and also in his letter under Ex.M.5 given to the 3rd respondent subsequently; he would not have received the amount under Ex.M3 towards full and final settlement of all his dues against R1 and R2 if any other amount like under Ex.W1 was also due to him; he had received Rs.18,640/- subsequent to Ex.W1 and in full and final settlement of all his dues against R1 and R2 on 15.7.94 and only, thereafter had he received the notice in Ex.W3 dt.25.8.94. The Tribunal concluded that the petitioner was making a false claim on the basis of Ex.W1 even after receiving Rs.18,640/- in full and final settlement of all his claims against all the respondents and that he cannot claim any more amount from R2 to R4 herein. The petition filed u/s 33 C (2) of Industrial Disputes Act was dismissed. Before this Court Sri.A.Srinivasa Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the Tribunal had erred in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner had received Rs.18,640/- in full and final settlement of his claim; if the petitioner had received the said amount there was no reason for him to make a further claim; and as such the findings recorded by the Tribunal were erroneous. The jurisdiction exercised by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is supervisory and not appellate. This Court would not sit in appeal over findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal nor would it substitute its views for that of the Tribunal on re-appreciation of the facts on record. It is only if the findings recorded by the Tribunal suffers from perversity or it is based on no evidence would interference be justified. It is not even urged before this Court that the order under challenge suffers from any such infirmity. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances without costs. 17th February, 2010. ( RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J ) tnb THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.34844 of 1997 17TH FEBRUARY 2010.