D.B. SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.1199/2008 State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Judge Labour Court No.2, Jaipur Date of Judgment :: July 21, 2008. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. G.S. Gill, Additional Advocate General for the appellant(s). *** Heard Mr. Gill, learned counsel for the appellants and perused the order impugned. By the order impugned, the learned Single Judge of this Court, on appreciation of facts and question of law involved in the matter, dismissed the writ application and affirmed the award passed by the labour court. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the labour court and also the learned Single Judge of this Court misinterpreted the facts and directed for reinstatement of the workman. He further submitted that the Manager, Vidhyak Niwas was not the competent authority to appoint the concerned workman, and therefore, his appointment itself was void ab initio. On perusal of the award and also the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, it appears that the evidence led by the parties were considered. Taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties, the labour court held that the termination of the concerned workman was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction, and thus directed for reinstatement of the concerned workman with 50% back wages. The award as such, was affirmed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in his discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution. -2- Learned counsel for the appellants basically urged the questions of fact. Since the labour court passed the award on scrutiny of the evidence, the learned Single Judge, in his discretionary power, was wholly justified in affirming the award. It is settled by various judgments of the Apex Court that the award passed by the labour court need not be interfered with unless the same is contrary to evidence and violative of the statutory provisions. It has further been held that the writ court while exercising the powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution should not substitute the award by its own view. The High Court admittedly, has scrutinized the orders of the labour court and dismissed the writ application. No legal flaw is being pointed out at the face of the award or the impugned order. In this connection, reference may be made to the cases of Sadhu Ram Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (1983) 4 SCC 156 and Jitendra Singh Rathor Vs. Shri Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. & Anr., AIR 1984 SC 976. For the reasons aforementioned and in view of the legal proposition, therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J. (NARAYAN ROY),CJ. Skant/-